No, the mortgage holder has a lien on a property, which can be assigned. Title always remains with the lender.
If ownership of a lien is unclear, it may be unclear who ultimately owns the mortgage, but the mortgage servicer should remain. Not a lawyer, but I believe the laws relating to the owner/mortgage servicer relationship are designed to maintain consistency. A mortgage holder needs to be able to show proof of ownership. In the 2008 era, there were cases where this was lost and homeowners successfully challenged and had liens removed.
Well they could loose so much you essentially end up squatting in your own house. And if it happened to enough people you could hopefully just wait it out until you had a claim.
But America being America. You'd have a local sheriff there smash down doors with the local SWAT team to reclaim the assets for someone who bought the debt on the cheap.
in the 08 crash there where some people that won their house in court, due to the industry using a practice called Robo-Signing. Some judges saw this as irreparably separating the mortgage from the deed. So while you technically still owed for the mortgage you signed, the asset could not be reclaimed due to the fracture of the mortgage from the deed due to robo-signing. The practice was used to move mortgages around while not having to pay filing taxes every time it changed hands. It robbed local municipalities of a lot of money in avoidance. So some judges frowned on the practice and basically awarded the house to the owner. Whether you would win your case or not was hit or miss though.
I refuse to connect android auto. Now, whenever I charge my phone in the car, multiple prompts continuously pop-up to enable android auto.
It's become unnecessarily dangerous if I'm using GPS for directions because now I have to continuously press "decline" and "not now" so I can see my directions. This has happened multiple times in a minute. Very dangerous - merely ceasing to ask after the tenth decline would probably save lives.
IMO, now is the time to compare your existing portfolio with your target portfolio. I.e. you have a preferred amount of stocks/bonds, and given recent market events that is likely not in alignment. So sell your winners and buy more losers.
You don't buy all at once, though - you can "dollar cost average" into the market by buying index funds in small chunks when there are big dips, and stop buying when it stops falling.
You won't predict the bottom, and you might not get all of your money in in time, but you'll still wind up ahead when the markets recover.
And they will recover, unless we somehow get to a point where the entire monetary system collapses. The only question is whether it will take a few weeks, months, years, or decades.
Pick your starting point depending on how long you can wait. Buying early makes you less likely to miss the dip, but it might take longer to start seeing green numbers. Buying late means that you stand to gain more in the short term, but you might not get all of your money in in time.
Personally, I think we're still straddling the "early" line around now, but your guess is as good as mine. This is what they call a 'roller coaster' :)
It's a fire sale though. So you can also protect your capital as best you can and get in there. Establish a rule to sell the stock if it falls another N%, and jump on the stock sale. HN is generally super risk-averse but there are ways to moderate risk with finer-grained control than "don't try to catch a falling knife."
This shouldn't matter at all, since there are huge penalties associated with taking money out of your retirement funds before you're 59 and a half years old.
If your job is not secure, you should account for that by increasing your emergency funds (typically a savings or money market account).
There's not always penalties. Look up what's called the Section 72(t) distribution. This is a "retire early" option, where you can start taking a monthly distribution at any age, without penalty (income tax still applies), as long as you maintain that distribution for the longer of five years or until age 59.5.
I think what is scaring the market is the perspective of a lockdown (and its economic impact). I don't see anything in the news now and for the foreseeable future that would reverse that.
No, because higher risk means buying more stocks. Nobody has a magic eight-ball, but given how the economic changes that we'll be seeing have barely started, I strongly doubt that:
1. We are close to having hit the bottom.
2. Once we do hit the bottom, there will be a magical, fantastic, quick recovery, that you will miss out on if you don't act quick.
If either one of these is true, then buying stocks right now is jumping the gun. If both of them is false, you should buy everything you can.
If you want to be safe, liquidate, and sit on cash. If you want to be greedy, the best play may also be to liquidate and to sit on cash.
We've gotten off track. I was referring to my interactions with people IRL and the joke about "throttling" was just playing of the parent comment. I'm not actually considering violence, just sick of people telling me "it's no big deal" when for me, it's a VERY big deal.
I think relying on the good will of the masses as volunteers is like bringing a knife to a gun-fight. The opposing side does disinformation for profit[1] and has a budget for it.
So how can someone do that on a platform such as Twitter?
Edit: I did expect a serious response to this from someone that might know more about effectively delivering feedback to the algorithms that display this content. Frankly, it seems like the nonchalant responses(to say the least) are contributors to why this misinformation continues to proliferate.
My interactions have been in person. Even friends and family who know I have a compromised immune system seem to "forget in the moment". It's baffling.
But seriously, I wonder if we can take the lessons from mitigating a biological viral epidemic, and apply them to mitigating an informational viral epidemic.
At first, you made me think about how a quarantine/isolation plan could be implemented on the internet. Something that is controlled mostly by a limited number of entities.
However, what if there was a habit for individuals to "feel clean" after exposure to misinformation? Something that could be accomplished on a personal level. Like washing your hands or brushing your teeth. Something where afterward you feel like you contributed to both the community and your own wellbeing.
I think people understand the basics of COVID-19 well. What they don't realize are how many "sick" people are around them. See also the health care debate over "pre-existing" conditions. Until you have one, or have a family member with one, you're pretty clueless.
Autoimmune diseases are under diagnosed, but some estimates say it's more than 1% of the population. That's roughly 3.3 million Americans that may be taking medications that reduce the efficacy of their immune system.
TLDR; Don't assume everyone is healthy / carries the same risk, even if they look healthy.
I don't understand why we should all self-isolate just because some people are immunocompromised... Surely x% of people staying home/not working is better than 100% of people staying home/not working?!
> Pregnancy loss, including miscarriage and stillbirth, has been observed in cases of infection with other related coronaviruses [SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV] during pregnancy. High fevers during the first trimester of pregnancy can increase the risk of certain birth defects.
