Bank of America restarts 102,000 Repossessions?

  Uboat 01:11 19 Oct 2010
Locked

Thats some serious amount of money and homes, i thought the stimulas was taking place.?

Its states "The news was greeted well by markets, with Bank of America's and JP Morgan's share prices rising 2.9% and 2.4% respectively by the close of trading on Monday" How is this so.? i would of thought if anything its a bad sign isnt it.??

click here

  Kevscar1 04:30 19 Oct 2010

because it means they can then sell them and get back some of the money they are owed. Take an average proce of say $250,000. Thats over 25 billion dollars.

  morddwyd 07:35 19 Oct 2010

A company decides to get back some of the money it's owed.

Good for them, though tragic for the individual families affected.

I wish our government would do the same with the banks.

  GANDALF <|:-)> 07:54 19 Oct 2010

'Take an average price of say $250,000'...you are obviously not aware of the huge decreases in house prices in the USA.

G

  michaelw 09:03 19 Oct 2010

How does it work in the US? Does that mean 2.5 million families are now on the streets, or are they being rehomed by their local authorities?

  jack 09:20 19 Oct 2010

I guess the folk in the homes they cant pay for will seek loans that they cant pay back so they then can pay back what they could not payback before- if you get the drift
It'll be the same banks or their agents of course.

  GANDALF <|:-)> 10:59 19 Oct 2010

As houses are difficult to sell in many areas of the States and as the repossessions will be from job-starved areas I would say that $250k is a load of cobblers. Houses are worthless until you have the money in your mitts. My American friends went into spasms of mirth when they heard this.

G

  gardener 11:33 19 Oct 2010

'How does it work in the US? Does that mean 2.5 million families are now on the streets, or are they being rehomed by their local authorities?'

If Ms. Palin and co. have their way those 2.5 million will be on the streets:

click here

  spuds 14:01 19 Oct 2010

I was watching a documentary the other evening, which was thought provoking. In the areas that was shown (USA), many of the houses including industrial properties had been repossessed and abandoned, with the end result of total dereliction in some areas of big expanse.

Who pays for that magnitude of a mess. Is it nobody with no money, further government bail-outs or the banks trying to re-cooperate their previous losses and decisions, so as to silver-line themselves for pending profit forecasts?.

  wee eddie 14:21 19 Oct 2010

and left the property empty, then I would think that the ex-Householder would have a case to sue the Bank, for dereliction of the duty of due care, if the House had fallen into disrepair.

If the Bankers were so short sighted as not to have found a way to keep the House Tenanted and in good condition. Then they deserve to be shafted, although I doubt that they will be.

  lotvic 14:45 19 Oct 2010

Maybe the Householder can buy the house back at a cut rate price or rent it off the bank?
Gotta live somewhere..

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

OnePlus 5 review

50 best online Adobe XD tutorials

iPad Pro 10.5in (2017) review

Comment connecter un MacBook à une TV ?