CW 513 FBF – Strategic Defaults & Loan Modifications with Chad Ruyle Co-Founder of YouWalkAway.com

This show is produced by the Hartman Media Company. For more information and links to all.

Our great podcasts, visit hartmanmedia.com hey, this is Jason Hartman. Thank you so much for joining me. Do you know what day it is? Yes, it is Flashback Friday where you hear the best of the Creating wealth show and you hear some good prior episodes, some good review. Remember, we've got almost 5, 500 episodes out. And you know what? Itunes doesn't even hold them all. If you're an itunes listener. If you are listening on Stitcher. Thank you for joining us. So we want to bring you some good review stuff. Now, what's interesting about Flashback Friday, It's a little scary for me. I gotta be very, very candid with you on that because you, the listener, you get the chance to hold my feet to the fire. Did I make any predictions or was I right? Was I wrong? I've been right about a lot of things, but I've been wrong about a few. So you can give me a hard time about that if you wish. But it's Flashback Friday and we will give you the uncensored best of the Creating wealth show with a prior episode. So let's dive in.

Here we go.

Remember, this is not current. It's Flashback Friday.

Welcome to Creating wealth with Jason Hartman. During this program, Jason is going to tell you some really exciting things that you probably haven't thought of before. And a new slant on investing. Fresh, new approaches to America's best investment that will enable you to create more wealth and happiness than you ever thought possible. Jason is a genuine self made multimillionaire who not only talks the talk but walks the walk. He's been a successful investor for 20 years and currently owns properties in 11 states and 17 cities. This program will help you follow in Jason's footsteps on the road to financial freedom. You really can do it. And now here's your host, Jason Hartman with the complete solution for real estate investors.

It's my pleasure to welcome Chad Rule to the show today. He is with youwalkaway.com and we are going to talk about the all popular and interesting topic today of strategic defaults and whether short sale makes sense, loan modification makes sense, foreclosure makes sense and kind of what people are doing out there. Obviously all of you listeners know that people are very upset with banks and Wall street right now and I think rightfully so. And Chad is actually an attorney and he started this site to help homeowners really understand their options. I think I'm describing that correctly, but I'll let Him do the rest. Chad, welcome. How are you?

I'm good. Thanks for having me on the show.

My pleasure. Tell us a little bit about your background and how you came to get into this side of the business.

Well, my background is I'm an attorney. And as an attorney I get a lot of questions in all fields of law. And at the around 2007, a lot of people were coming to me asking about their mortgage and the foreclosure process because there really wasn't information out there. There weren't attorneys or services out there to help them. So my business partner and I, John Maddox, we got together to start a site. You walk away to help these homeowners understand their rights, their options to get through how to get through the foreclosure process in the best way possible. So these people were spending a lot of money on attorneys fees or fly by night company sites that really didn't offer any sort of help. They just took money up front and promised to do things, promised to modify loans and in the end didn't really perform their service.

Fantastic. So there has been a lot of, just a lot of litigation, a lot of upset people who hired loan mod firms. A lot of these were attorney backed, they said that's sort of the way they said it. Attorney backed. And I'm holding up quotes as I say that Chad warrant at first. And then there was a new law that was passed about charging upfront fees and all this kind of stuff. Is there a difference between what you do and those other loan modification firms?

Yeah. So what uwalkaway does, we don't deal with the bank, we don't do loan modifications. What we primarily do is help the homeowner first understand what their options are with the information we provide them. So what we provide is a uwawkway kit that has all that information in there. It's got form letters. We track their foreclosure and give them an update as to what's going on. Part of the service is they get an attorney consultation within the state that they're in. And we are a nationwide company and they also get a consultation with a CPA for tax advice on the tax ramifications. So we essentially help the homeowner understand their options and then in going through foreclosure, understanding their rights, the timing, the ramifications. But we also have a division that does short sales nationally as well. So we do help people with short sales in regards to loan modifications. We don't do them. We don't deal directly with the bank. We just Give information to the homeowner so that they understand if they should go that route and if they do, what to expect and what the process is like.

What is the sentiment of people out there nowadays? I mean, certainly all of our listeners now have heard of the concept of strategic default. Should people walk away? Is that the best thing to do? And when they walk away, what's the right way to walk away? I mean, I think most walkways are people living in their house for free for two or three years and then they're taking out everything, including the kitchen sink and taking it with them.

Yeah, well, I mean, we certainly don't recommend that. There's some ramifications, but yeah, in terms of the options, you know, first the homeowner has to decide do they want to stay in the property or not. You know, is it something that's sentimental or location wise? Are families there? And there's a difference and we'll talk more about it. But is it an investment? Property versus owner occupied, Is it their residence? And so they first have to decide do they want to stay in the property or not? If they want to stay in the property, then that's where the loan modification would come into play. Or if they could refinance. Obviously most people aren't able to because there's not enough equity. So then there'd be, you know, they'd look at a loan modification. The loan modification is very difficult. The banks are just extremely difficult to work with. They're very slow moving. It's kind of a catch 22. You have to have enough income to show you can make the new payments, but you have to have little enough income that they want to work with you in lowering your payment. Because obviously if you show too much income, they'll say, well, I'll just keep paying this mortgage.

A comment on that, Chad, is that nobody seems to know what the magic number is. It seems to be this secret, highly guarded underwriting criteria that only the people of the Bilderberg Group know. I mean, it's like absurd. Nobody knows what to do or how to qualify for a loan mod. It just seems like a big game.

Remember, you're listening to Flashback Friday. Our new episodes are published every Monday and Wednesday.

Yeah, there's really no magic number. Banks don't even know themselves because each, each loss mitigation department at each bank is different. And it just depends on who you talk to. You know, I've seen all across the board different types of loan modifications. Where in one case they would say, that doesn't make sense. Or we won't allow that. And then months later, the same thing. They said they wouldn't approve, they approve. So yeah, it's with loan modifications. Modifications, short sales. It's just very difficult to deal with with the bank because there's just no logic there. And so if the homeowner though decides to get rid of the property, then their option would be a short sale or foreclose on it, you know, go through the foreclosure process. So the decision in that is really an effect on your credit. So there are certain ramifications of whether the bank can come after you for the difference or not. On short sales, the object is really to get the bank to sign off to agree that they won't come after you for the difference. And so the short sale would be to help their credit. It's much better than having a foreclosure on your credit. The process is that someone would negotiate like our company would negotiate a short sale with the bank. And so if the property is only worth 200,000 and at the height it was worth 400,000, the loan was a 100% loan, like a lot of these, and it was 400,000, then you've got that difference of $200,000 that has to be figured out with the bank. And so in that short sale process, the bank hopefully approves that new number. A reduction in principal, the property sold, the bank takes that loss, homeowner's out of the property, and it's less an effect on their credit. So those are really the options. And again, depending on whether they want to stay or not and what their end goal is.

Okay, so Chad, talk for a moment about if they want to stay. So say someone wants to stay in the property. And of course we're talking about homeowners now, not investors. But I'd like you to maybe parse that up a little bit too, because there are some nuances that differ with investment properties versus your personal residence. Right?

Yeah. So I mean, whether they stay or not, I mean, the difference is, would be whether the bank has, typically whether bank has recourse. I mean, particularly in California. Arizona has similar laws where, you know, if it's your residence and there's a deficiency amount, in my example, where the property's worth 200,000 now and the loan was worth 400,000, that deficiency of 200,000 with a residence, there's anti deficiency rules where the homeowner would not owe the bank that difference by law.

One distinction first and that that is providing it is a purchase money loan that has the deficiency. Right. Because if that person refinanced or put a second trust deed on the house, then it can be recourse. Is that correct? I just wanted to make sure people knew that.

Yeah, correct. But there could be a second that is a purchase money.

Right.

A lot of these loans, they had a first, they took that the second was used towards the purchase. So, yeah, if there's a second that was not used towards the purchase, it was a home equity line, they pulled money out and used it for something else, then you're correct. They're not covered under the deficiency statute for that.

So the listeners should understand that a purchase money loan just means loan proceeds that you use to acquire the property. If you refinanced it, even in a state like California that is a non recourse state, that loan then becomes a recourse loan if you've refinanced. Right?

Yeah.

Okay, correct. To make sure people knew that, go ahead.

And so that, I mean, that brings up a good point as well. So what we're talking about is the difference whether it's an investor or it's their residence. And so there's more protection for a homeowner that lives in it. But at the end of the day, what we're really seeing is, you know, it's a question of whether the bank will come after the owner for the difference. So not talking, you know, law, we're talking more of a reality if the deficiency amount, and typically we're seeing this where the first has been, you know, wiped out or has wiped out the second, you know, whether that second lien will come after the homeowner. And a lot of times we're just, we're seeing the bank not do that. We're seeing them charge it off because the amount that the cost of them going through litigation and the fees are too much to try to recoup that difference.

Right. And Chad, that's one of the things I've talked about in prior shows because. And of course, listeners, you got to be careful with this conversation here. You can't hang your hat on this necessarily. Okay. It's just an opinion.

We see. Right, yeah, got it.

But, but that's not true every, in every instance. And that's what I was going to just follow up and say. You know, it just depends on the bank, it depends on the loan, it depends on the amount that, that you owe the deficiency.

Right, right. But here's my question for you though, Chad, on that issue. If there really are 7 million people either in or on their way to foreclosure and say we have that many foreclosures or some really high number. Right. How would all of the banks sue all of those people? It's just, is a practical matter, it's just not going to happen. Now the problem is it may be you rather than your next door neighbor. So that's why you got to be careful. But, but here's my question for you. How do you know that you've got a non recourse deal? So say for example, someone listening is in California and it could be any state, but let's just use them as an example and say the statute here, the law is that it's a recourse because they have refinanced the property or say it's in another state that is a recourse state and they haven't refinanced, so it's recourse right away. So you do a short sale. How do you know that the lender, it's always kind of hanging out there that maybe they have four years possibly to pursue the deficiency or two years or whatever the thing is in that.

State, each state has different statute of limitations.

Right.

On the recall.

So how do you know they're not going to pursue it even though they have the legal right to? How do you know? Now you could have that in the paperwork where you say you and the bank agree that there's no recourse. Of course that's one way to do it, right?

Yeah. So in a short sale, that's typically what the realtor negotiator will try to do the bank to agree in the contract that they won't come after them for the difference. But they don't always do that. And that's kind of a negotiating point with the bank between the bank and the negotiator. But in terms of whether they will or not, like you said, you can't hang your hat on it that they won't. But you have to look at how aggressive the banks are and that's tough for an individual consumer or homeowner to know. But there are certain banks that we know of that are, that are more aggressive than others in trying to recoup their deficiency. The biggest determining factor is really how much, what's the difference? You know, if it's 30, $40,000 difference, I'm not saying they won't. But it's unlikely that they'll come after homeowners for that difference. The fees, the costs are involved for them to try to recoup that it Just doesn't pencil out for them to pursue an action against them.

Just a reminder, you're listening to Flashback Friday. Our new episodes are published every Monday and every Wednesday.

Right. And when you say pursue an action, of course that makes sense because anybody listening who's been involved in litigation knows that 30, $40,000 in attorney fees are, that happens pretty quick. So does the lender have to actually formally sue the borrower to recoup that deficiency or can they do it in a statutory manner? Or is there another way? Or is it just a full blown civil lawsuit?

Well, each state's different. In some it's part of the foreclosure process and then they would actually file a claim for the deficiency amount and then get a judgment for that deficiency amount and have to pursue that. In some it's a separate action that the lender has to bring. It is a civil action that they would have to bring to recoup the difference. They'd have to go through that civil trial process and then get a judgment and then also have to enforce the judgment. So as many of your listeners probably know, the legal system isn't cheap and it isn't quick. So when the bank is looking at that lengthy, costly process, they're going to think twice about, you know, about it if the deficiency amount is less, you know, if it doesn't make sense financially for them to do that.

I just wanted to clear a couple of those points up, but go ahead with what you're saying. I got you off on a few tangents here and I apologize. But I just thought it was important for the listeners to know some of those things. So differences between investment properties and homes, did you kind of COVID that?

Yeah. So with investment properties versus, you know, owner occupied, I mean, the main difference really is the deficiency amount or the ability for the bank to come after the homeowner for the deficiency. But also it affects whether someone could get a short sale or a loan modification. The banks are not very willing to work with investors.

Investment properties because it's a second property or multiple property. They're much more willing to work with a owner occupied to do a loan modification or short sale.

And I think part of the reason for that is just basic pr. The banks have a pretty bad image right now and they want to lessen, if possible, the number of people that are kicked out and talking on cameras and so forth, calling in to talk radio shows. But I will tell you that the banks are so flipping confused and just disorganized, it's mind boggling to Me that half the time it seems like they don't even know whether you're occupying the property or not. They literally have no idea. I mean, I have received letters in the mail on properties I own all over the country. And bank of America is in an attempt to justify the money they've taken, actually I should say stolen from our government, us, the taxpayers, in pretending that they're willing to do loan modifications. Right. They'll say, well, we're having an event in your area and here the property's in Georgia and they're inviting me to. They just have no clue what is going on. And you can tell when you talk to their call centers and their processing people that they just, they just don't even know. I mean these portfolios are so big and it's just a mess. I mean, you've certainly heard and read about the MERS system and what a disaster. I mean it's just mind boggling what's going on.

You know, I've tried to understand it and I think you're certainly right that it really has to do with this whole department that was created 07 or you know, around there 2007, where they had these departments of, for loans and procuring loans and putting, you know, homeowners or people into homes. And, and then they had this all of a sudden switch from that and get rid of all these people and take on a loss mitigation department. So it's a, it's a, not a whole new department because they've always had a loss mitigation, you know, department. But, but they've had to increase it substantially. I couldn't give you numbers. I don't know how many new employees each bank and loss mitigation departments. But anytime a company or a department grows that quick and that large, there's just going to be chaos. You can't do that. So I think part of it is this unorganization, this chaos that's going on at the loss mitigation department at banks. And just to clarify, loss mitigation departments, those are the departments, the people that a homeowner would talk with or negotiate with if they're trying to get a loan modification. They'd be talking to the loss mitigation department of the bank. If they're trying to do a short sale, it's also at the loss mitigation department. So they're dealing with these people at the banks. A lot of them really don't know what's going on. So I think there is that chaos. But I also Think that these banks aren't really willing to move through short sales and modifications quickly because I think then they'd have to write down these assets. So if they took it all on at once, it would kill their balance sheets to show all these losses at once.

That's a great point. That is a great point, Chad, and I'm glad you brought that up. The other thing I'd like to just ask you about that is it seems that the banks, and this is purely anecdotal, I have no data on this. It's just a perception, it seems that the more willing to do short sales than loan modifications. And I don't know if that's the way their assets are valued or the way that the investors they sell off the loans are willing. I don't know why it is exactly. I'll probably come to understand it, but at this time I don't. Do you perceive it that way too, that loan mods are harder to get than short sales?

I do. I think it's what the bank is looking at, the reality they're facing of someone doing a short sale versus a foreclosure. They're further on in the process. So it's kind of like the second step almost. They've tried a loan modification, bank wasn't willing to work with them, so now they're in option two, looking at short sale. I'm not saying that what happens all the time, but a lot of times that's the process. And so when they get to that short sale, the bank's looking at either a short sale or a foreclosure. And every time they go with the foreclosure route, they're going to lose money because they have the cost and fees of going through the foreclosure, taking the property back, having to get the owner out of the property and then the costs that are associated with it and the loss in value if there's a depreciation. So they're going to be losing a lot more money if they go through the foreclosure versus going through a short sale because they reduce their costs and their fees. But going back to this irrationality of the banks, I've seen cases where people work out a short sale for say 400,000 and the bank's just not willing to budge. They're not willing to go down to 400,000. Property goes to a short trustee sale, so it goes through the foreclosure. Bank sells it at a trustee sale and they sell it for $340,000. So they're selling it for $60,000 less than what they were unwilling to sell it for through a short sale. In addition to taking that $6,000 loss, they're having to pay a lot more in costs and fees because they went further along in the process. So it just doesn't make sense.

Very good point. So in terms of how someone should walk away, or if they should walk away, maybe circle back around, we started talking about that. What are some of the other things they should think of? I mean, for example, Chad, does it ever make sense to just do the foreclosure? Does that sometimes make more sense than the short sale? I mean, it hurts your credit more. And I do want to ask you a little bit. I know this isn't your specific area, but you are involved with it. Credit repair and credit restoration. Because with a foreclosure, the person can stay in the house longer, potentially, right?

Yeah. The determining factor is really their credit. So do they really. Are they going to buy a house in the near future? Do they need that credit for something? If they're trying to save their credit, a short sale is a better option. But a lot of these homeowners, they've already ruined their credit. They're not looking to buy anytime soon. And the process of going through a short sale is a lot more involved, a lot more difficult than just letting it foreclose. And as you pointed out, going through the foreclosure process, typically they get to stay in the home a lot longer than a short sale.

One thing I just want to mention there, if I may. I know I said that, and what you're saying is interesting and it's right. But sometimes the short sale is used as a gambit to sort of string lender along and delay the foreclosure. So sometimes you actually stay longer if you're doing the short sale or at least pretending to do the short sale.

Sure. There are people, People use it as a tool, like you said, to stay in the property longer they use. They pretend that they're going to be doing a loan modification or a short sale. But, you know, most of the people we see, they're. They're really trying to work something out with the bank, and the banks just aren't cooperating. But yeah, going. So going through the foreclosure, you know, I know people that have stayed in their properties for two, three years without paying a rent, without paying property taxes. So they're living essentially rent free. And from a financial perspective.

Because they weren't as concerned about their credit, made much more sense to go through the foreclosure than it did to try to short sell the property.

Let me take a brief pause.

We'll be back in just a minute.

Now's your opportunity to get the Financial Freedom Report. The Financial Freedom Report provides financial self defense in uncertain times. And it's your source for innovative forward thinking investment property strategies and advice. Get your newsletter subscription today you get a digital download and even more. Go to jasonhartman.com to get yours today.

Can people get their credit repaired? Can they fix up their credit after one of these experiences?

Yeah. So on the credit side of it, there's two areas. One is the score and one is the report. And they work together. But the difference is that the score can be recovered fairly quickly. And when I say fairly quickly, a year or two, sometimes sooner. But that score can get back up to what they had before. But on the report, which is the information, kind of a history or timeline of their credit relationships, the foreclosure is going to be on there for up to seven years. So a bank might see a good score, but they could look at the report, see a foreclosure on there, and then make a decision not to lend because they saw that foreclosure. But outside of that, I mean that score is going to be recovered, as I said, relatively quickly.

So are banks looking at the report closely? Because most people talk in terms of scores, they just say my FICO score is this with Experian, that with Transunion, that with Equifax or my Trimerge, which means the merger of the three reports together. My middle score is X. And by the way, you may have a commentary on this. As an aside, I think that 650 is the new 720 when it comes to credit scores nowadays.

Yeah, and that's a good point too. Go back to your first point. But on the point of the relativity of scores now, I think they've changed. Both things have changed how they score and also lenders perception of that score because there are so many people that defaulted on their mortgage and missed payments and people that had trouble with credit cards and missing those payments that you have a larger percentage of the population that has lower score.

So it's, it's a bell curve. It's a bell curve.

It's a bell curve. Exactly. I was just going to say that. So, so it's the perception of the score, but it's also the score itself that's changing. No one knows how they scored exactly. It's based on a lot of different factors. But in terms of the score and looking at foreclosure, your credit and foreclosure, a lot of the people that we deal with, we advise them, if you're not going to pay your mortgage and you're concerned about the effect the foreclosure will have in your credit, take that money you're saving if you can. Some people can't. But if you can, use part of that to pay off your credit card debt, credit card debts, we've heard debt balance is roughly 30% of your score, the effect on it. So there's ways to use the foreclosure and the savings there to your advantage to try to build that score back up.

That's similar to what I had predicted. I think correctly now, looking back when consumer spending went up like a year ago last summer, spring, and the Obama administration was bragging about the recovery. Yeah, sure. I said at the time, this is just simply people who aren't making their mortgage payments going to the shopping mall. It's a matter of people using money they would otherwise be paying a mortgage with to spend.

Yeah. There was a Bloomberg article recently and I just, I don't think it's aired yet, but I had, I just interviewed with Fox News and the piece was on that this. What are people doing with the money that they're saving by not paying their mortgage? A lot of the people we see are using it responsibly, but obviously there's people that are just spending it unwisely. But I think there's an effect on the economy because there's money that's being saved by not paying a mortgage and they can go out to eat more. They can spend it on trips. And so when that free ride ends, you know, not paying the mortgage, then that money is going to be taken out of the economy.

Yep. Couldn't agree more. And that's what happened during the refi boom, when all these lenders were giving these liberally ridiculous loans, is that a large part of the country's GDP was basically coming from people refiing their homes and buying stuff that wasn't real production. It was simply cycling fake equity into the shopping mall, the car dealership and the travel agent.

It's kind of like the foreclosed properties, the REOs, where investors were buying those up, that the realtors and that industry was pointing to those numbers to say, look, the housing market is recovering. People are buying again. But those weren't real buyers. Those were mainly investor groups or investors. But on that point and as it relates to everything we're talking about there's a difference of the homeowner who can make the payment, but they just decide because they're so far upside down, they're underwater, it's not worth it. So those are strategic defaulters where they're just deciding, look, it's not financially my interest to continue paying a mortgage on a property I paid $400,000 for, that's worth 200,000. I'm not going to recoup that for many, many years. A difference between them and then the homeowner who just can't afford it, they aren't making enough money, they lost their job, lost income, whatever the reason. But people differentiate the two. But you also have to look at kind of the gray area where someone might be considered a strategic defaulter. And people say, well, they can afford it, they have enough income, but that means that might mean they're not putting money towards savings or they might have to take money out of their retirement funds. They're not paying for certain needs and things of their family. So at the cost of their family, their future, they would be able to continue making the payment. So there's definitely a gray area, I think, between a strategic defaulter and then just a homeowner who absolutely can't afford that payment.

Well, the original question on that kind of started out as the difference between the score and the report on someone's credit. Now, and you were going to get to this, and I know you're working your way there, but like, are the lenders really looking at the reports closely or is it score based?

You know, I couldn't say for sure. I mean, each bank's different, but most of them, you know, they look at the score. That's what they go off of. It just depends on the size of the loan and the procedure of the bank. But it's mostly looking at the score. But I know the banks do in certain cases look at the report as well to see if there's a foreclosure on the record.

Can you fix that? Can it be removed? Or is that pretty impossible? You see all these ads and all these companies that some seem rather hokey to say the least, that say they can fix your credit. I mean, what is the real success rate in that kind of stuff?

You know, I couldn't give you percentages. You walk away, doesn't do that. We don't file lawsuits or try to get foreclosure off the record. But just in my experience, in hearing of different cases, it's definitely successful. It's not Something that happens most of the time, I can say that. But I've seen people that for whatever reason, whatever violations that are there from Respio, able to get the bank to take the foreclosure off the record, which significantly helps their score. Sometimes people will hire attorneys or companies to try to do that, credit restoration companies to try to fix that. There's games that people play with the bank of demanding that they produce the note, which essentially is showing them the loan documents, that they actually have them in hand, you know, asking and requesting that many times and the bank not complaining, complying that they force them then to remove the foreclosure off the record. So it definitely works. But I think a homeowner going into the decision, foreclosure, short sale, loan mod or continuing to pay, they shouldn't bank on them getting a foreclosure off their record.

Very good point. In other words, don't hang your hat on it. Well, Chad, what else do you want people to know about this whole area? What haven't we covered in this talk?

Well, the question I get asked most by the media is the moral dilemma or ethical dilemma of someone that walks away and specifically strategically defaults. So again, they owe more than the house is worth. And from a financial perspective, doesn't make sense. There's this idea that no matter what you pay your mortgage, that's your obligation, that's your word. But in my view, and if you look at the contract, it's different than a credit card debt which is just a guarantee that you're going to pay that back. There's no collateral in the property. In a mortgage, it's a business transaction where there's collateral and the property. The bank in their agreement is lending you the money. And if you don't pay that money back, they get to take that property. So it's not, you're not breaking your word or your bond or the contract, doing anything illegal. You're following the terms of contract to where if, if it, you know, if you can't, if you don't pay, it doesn't say if you can, it just says if you don't pay this mortgage, then we'll take the property back. And they hedge their bets with interest rates, they hedge their bets in other ways with certain credit default swaps and other investments. And also banks, they should have been in a position to know better. They're the ones who created these loans, sold them off many, many times in mortgage backed securities. So obviously we wouldn't feel bad for the banks, but in this Business transaction. I think it's completely ethical for a homeowner to decide to give the property back. They obviously have certain ramifications with credit, possible deficiencies that they owe. But they have to look at it as a financial decision. They can't just be bound of these payments because someone says that it's a moral obligation.

And you know what, I have to say that I agree with you. My attitude has changed pretty significantly on this because at the beginning of the financial crisis when I was less informed than I am today, I really sort of thought, what are all these people whining about? They got lucky. They got to move into a house that they couldn't otherwise have afforded. They got to live there for three, four years. And now they're complaining that they're getting kicked out on the street. And the media never asked the question, you know, when they reported those stories, well, did you ever really deserve this house in the first place? Before this you were living in a two bedroom apartment. Now you're living in a four bedroom, really nice McMansion or pseudo McMansion. It's sort of all relative. People just looked at as though, oh, they lost their home, but they never looked at what level the home was. And so I still think that, but on a larger picture with what you said that the bank has agreed that look at this is the business deal. Here's the collateral. It's not an installment debt, it's not a credit card debt. If I don't pay or I can't pay, you get the collateral back. And that is simply a business deal. It's the same way people use corporations and LLCs in the, in the broader business world. Shipping and exploration of the earth would have never been done if someone didn't invent the corporation. There probably would have never been a Columbus or any of those Explorers, right? And so that's the business deal. The liability goes only to the property. And there's certainly a large school of thought that believes that the banks engineered this whole crisis in the first place. We did an article in my newsletter, the Financial Freedom Report about Goldman Sachs and how they're the great bub machine and they always seem to profit ultimately from these bubbles where they go in and they pump up asset values, they loan on them, you know, and this is all the behind the scenes stuff that goes on in the Wall street world. They loan on them, they, they use credit default swaps, they use all these other vehicles, they sell off the loans to Fannie Mae, which means the taxpayers ultimately foot the bill through Taxes and inflation and debt, and then they go in and buy the assets up cheap later, and everybody's. Everybody's credit's been destroyed. And then they get to have an excuse to charge them higher rates on loans in the future because their credit is now worse off. And most people just buy into all of that, that grand scheme, without ever fighting back and trying to fix their credit or trying to consider strategic defaults and so forth. So it's a much more complex problem, and you can slice and dice this a zillion different ways. But I'm glad you brought up that, that moral question, because it's a good one.

I'd like to follow up by saying I do think there's a responsibility on the homeowner. I mean, certain people abuse the system. They lied in getting and securing the loan by not by falsifying their income. They pulled out seconds and didn't spend the money wisely. So I think there's responsibility on the homeowner. But if you look at morality, it's really looking at someone's intentions, not the actual itself. That's important to me, at least. And so, you know, in this situation, we're really just looking at a legal contract and what they're doing with it. You know, they're not breaking their word, as I said, they're following the terms of it. And, you know, to give an example, when people, you know, just after explaining that still don't feel it's quite right, I asked them if they have a cell phone contract.

Say, with one big carrier. They don't like that carrier's coverage or whatever reason they want to switch. People wouldn't think twice about moving to another carrier if the penalty was suitable. So they pay a $50 penalty, $100 penalty.

Get out of the deal. Get a better deal.

Sure, get out of the deal, move into a new carrier. And they understood the penalties that were there. The. The carrier set those penalties because they know people are going to move and cancel their contracts before the term. So when I asked them that, they said, well, yeah, I wouldn't have a problem doing that. I'd done that. I canceled my carrier. There are other examples like that.

But you made an intelligent business decision because it was worth it to pay the penalty. And so in the case of strategic default, the penalty people pay is, number one, it can be a big hassle. Number two, their credit is damaged. Number three, can be a hassle to fix the credit, and they ultimately lose the collateral of the property. So. And like you said, Chad, there will always be people that abuse every system. There are bad people out there that really take advantage of things. There's no question. We all know that's true, and that is going to happen. But in the case of the mortgage world, this whole game, and everybody knew it in the early 2000s and in the mid 2005 area when it was just getting really frothy, that the whole system was set up as a corrupt system where everybody along the line from the mortgage broker who gave you the loan was making commission and didn't really want to know if you could afford the house. The whole system was. Was set up that way. It was designed that way. And it wasn't like the borrower. You know, a lot of these lenders went out to people that they knew could not afford these properties and pushed loans down their throat. It's really a. It's a pretty.

The responsibility and the cause, I think is all the way from the homeowner all the way up to the top politicians and everywhere in between, from the homeowner, the mortgage broker, the bank, the investment company that bought the securities, the legislators that created, you know, new laws to allow for, you know, no, no, doc. No money down these new loans that were pushed and pushed back in the other direction towards the homeowners. I think all across board there's blame, but, you know, you really have to look at where do we want to burden or who do we want to burden? And I just get frustrated when people just keep arguing that it's the homeowner's responsibility 100%, they have to pay it. You know, I really believe that the burden is on the bank. They're the ones that went into this eyes wide open. They're the ones that got money from. They're the ones that should have heads or bets better. So that's where I really think that the burden lies.

I agree. Well, hey, this has been a really interesting discussion, chad rule. It's youwalkaway.com and Chad, we're going to do some special offer or something on our page for you and the services your company offers. And that's JasonHartman.com offers. So again, check out JasonHartman.com offers. And thank you so much for joining us today. Really appreciate the insights and learning more about intelligent strategic default, which is what you help people do. So appreciate having you on the show.

What's great about the shows you'll find on jasonhartman.com is that if you want to learn how to finance your next big real estate deal, there's a show for that. If you want to learn more about food storage and the best way to keep those onions from smelling up everything else, there's a show for that. If you honestly want to know more about business ethics, there's a show for that. And if you just want to get away from it all and need to know something about world travel, there's even a show for that. Yep, there's a show for just about anything only. From jasonhartman.com or type in Jason Hartman in the iTunes store.

This show is produced by the Hartman Media company. All rights reserved. For distribution or publication rights and media interviews, please visit www.hartmanmedia.com or email mediaartmanmedia.com Nothing on this show should be considered specific personal or professional advice. Please consult an appropriate tax, legal, real estate or business professional for individualized advice. Opinions of guests are their own and the host is acting on behalf of Platinum Properties Investor Network, Inc. Exclusively.