No. of Recommendations: 3
I know it's not right, but I can't help but find this amusing:

Judge Christopher A. Boyko of Federal District Court in Cleveland dismissed 14 foreclosure cases brought on behalf of mortgage investors, ruling that they had failed to prove that they owned the properties they were trying to seize.

...

But as foreclosures have surged, the complex structure and disparate ownership of mortgage securities have made it harder for borrowers to work out troubled loans, in part because they cannot identify who holds the mortgage notes, consumer advocates say.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/business/15lend.html
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
That's funny. I was just about to post the same link, with the same reaction.

As well as the humor, I think this could have good possibilities. The real bail out should be for homeowners who got conned into loans they couldn't pay, and the lenders should be forced to refinance in ways that are payable.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
20 yrs ago the gov set standards for borrowing ,, if u wanted to buy a 100 grand home u needed 20 grand in assets...

tim
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
20 yrs ago the gov set standards for borrowing ,, if u wanted to buy a 100 grand home u needed 20 grand in assets...

I think that was too restrictive. In fact, when we bought our house 21 years ago, with 10% down, I don't think we met that qualification. But the house we bought was only about 1.5 times gross income and we were on career paths with likely increases in salary.

There's a lot to be said for good old-fashioned loan officers at the local S&L making loans that are held by the S&L that has to take the risk of a default. I'm sure, in theory, you can make more good loans available with lower rates and lower origination costs by using credit programs and spreading the risk around. But then you have to find a way to make sure there are disincentives to making bad loans, when the way it worked out was there was every incentive to make a bad loan. I really do place a lot of blame on Greenspan. He just loves all this wizardry of spreading out the risk with the potential positives, but has no grasp of the real world in which this encourages recklessness and loan sharking.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I think that was too restrictive. In fact, when we bought our house 21 years ago, with 10% down, I don't think we met that qualification. But the house we bought was only about 1.5 times gross income and we were on career paths with likely increases in salary.

I bought a house in 1986 with a 3% down FHA loan which required prepaid insurance. A few years later when my equity was obviously over 20% I refinanced to get the ~60% of the prepaid insurance ($1450) back. That paid for the loan expenses and my interest rate was 1.25% lower.

That was the lowest down payment you could get without going to interest rates that were 2.5%+ higher and you had to have FHA to get that 3% down payment.

Paul
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 28
The real bail out should be for homeowners who got conned into loans they couldn't pay, and the lenders should be forced to refinance in ways that are payable.

But I wonder how well this would work in practice. Who would truly be helped and who would truly be hurt? Let's look at some examples.

In my case, I purchased my home for $250,000, put exactly 20% down, and took a traditional 30-year mortgage at 6 5/8% for the balance of $200,000. I have been paying that mortgage monthly since the month after I purchased my house. My neighbor, on the other hand, who incidentally earns 20% less than I do and thus can afford about 20% less as well, opted to purchase an identical house across the street for the same price. But in his case, he didn't put 20% down, but instead put 3-5% down, and instead opted for a "fancy" mortgage with lots of "features", one of which was an initial rate of 2.5% (and may have also had the option to pay interest only for a period of time).

So, I've been paying $1280.62/mo to live in the house, and he has been paying $790.24/mo to live in the house. This went on for a few years and his rate rose to 4.5% with a payment of $1013.37 which was just barely affordable for him and caused a few late payments every now and then, but he managed to catch up. But recently interest rates began to rise faster and his rate jumped to 6.5% and may rise further to 7.5% in the near future. And to make things worse, homeowners insurance just doubled! He couldn't afford those payments, and besides that he also has a bunch of large credit card bills, so he stopped paying his mortgage about 7 or 8 months ago. He's still ok on property taxes because the mortgage company already paid them (back in November of 2006) in full for 2007, but they will not make the upcoming November 30'th payment because his escrow account is depleted, so by April 2008, he will be in arrears of his property taxes.

So, now people (including you) are suggesting that the investors that own his mortgage reduce his interest rate from 7.5% to 5.5%, and make it fixed so he can "afford" to stay in his house.

Why do you think that it is good policy to help someone stay in a house that they really can't quite afford? Is this even good for the person in question, with all the other associated costs that are out of his range?

And what if he can't afford 5.5%, do you suggest that they fix the rate at 4.5%?

And what about the property taxes that will be in arrears in a few months, and the large homeowners insurance bill that has gone unpaid, do you suggest that those be "rolled" into the new mortgage, thus raising the principal amount and raising the payment, even at the lower "forced" rate?

Now let's look at who might be affected by such policy. Certainly the folks who lend money for mortgages are going to be much more careful in the future. Careful means that they will charge more for their "product" and that they will be much more careful with the people they loan their money to. This means that the cost of mortgages will go up for most future house purchasers. Not only that, but to make up for the loss of income on the "forced" 5.5% and 4.5% mortgages, they will require more income (i.e. higher rates/fees/etc) from new mortgages.

Why do you think that future house purchasers should subsidize previous house purchasers that purchased more than they can really afford?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Why do you think that future house purchasers should subsidize previous house purchasers that purchased more than they can really afford?

I dont think this. I think the CEO of Countrywide who made hundreds of billions from predatory lending should be the one to pay.

There are ways of working these things out that are good economics and fair. I don't want a bailout of someone who was house flipping and I don't think someone who gt a low teaser rate should be let off the hook. But a lot of the people who are in foreclosure, disproportionately minorities, were subjected to predatory lending. And those responsible for making these loans, or those who bought them up with the idea of making big money on high rates, are the ones who should lose out. I've seen some good proposals about avoiding foreclosure by providing affordable loans with the homeowner sacrificing a substantial proportion of future equity in the home.

Nobody wins with massive foreclosures. But I want to see the predatory lenders and the big banks and the hedge funds, not communities or those predated upon pay the price.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
The real bail out should be for homeowners who got conned into loans they couldn't pay, and the lenders should be forced to refinance in ways that are payable.

OOUCH!

Loki,

I am a very strong advocate for consumer protection and compliance and as a bank examiner helped enforce some of these rules - such as truth in lending, but on this issue I am not exactly sure where you are going with this and think mark presents an excellent argument. Why should his neighbor be "given" half a house for his recklessness.

How many stories have we seen where some one making $40,000 a year is buying $700,000 - $800,000 even MILLION DOLLAR MCMansions. Point is the same - If a person can not afford the house at the current fixed rate payment possibilities he should not be in the house!!


The doctors take IOW - just for some clarification - current possibilities is the lowest fixed rate that the person would have obtained given the same costs of a loan as he paid (then or now).
If some one purchased a teaser rate loan and got charged 2% for the loan - 1% discount 1% origination, then the lending insititution should give him a fixed rate - available to that borrower at that time or now (which ever is lower.)

The reason I would go at that time or now is because there are some home owners who used the opportunity to get into a home, and as a result have improved their credit such that the would qualify for a lower rate now than they would have at origination. Past this - if you can't afford the house at the fixed rate there should be no bail out!

And I do not see this as such a huge problem - it is big but not unsurmountable: An entity where home owners take their loan - some one examines the deal and makes the call - can this person afford this house at this rate?? If yes, then the loan is "paid through" that entity given legal protection against foreclosure, and then payments are passed through to the "securitization." The SPE can not go after the house and must accept the reduced payments.. IF the person can not afford the house at this rate, the entity steps aside! IT can provide assistance through voluntary programs established by some of the financial institutions and there could be some liberal guidelines as to affordability, but the key rests with if the person has been making and is capable of still making the payments on a level risk/reward playing field.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
OK, as I cross posted - I think we are on more common ground -
Yes CFC et al, should pony up a few billion to make this work.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
OK, as I cross posted - I think we are on more common ground -
Yes CFC et al, should pony up a few billion to make this work.


I'm really not interested in helping out anyone who gambled and lost or anyone who got a sweet deal on interest rates on a temporary basis and doesn't want to make up the difference, which is what I think Mark is talking about.

I see 3 types of foreclosures (probably more).

1) Folks who were trying to flip houses and lost
2) Folks who knowingly took teaser rates and thought they could refinance and win out.
3) Folks who got talked into mortgages they couldn't afford and didn't understand.

Group 1: let 'em eat cake. Group 2: find a refinancing formula that ends up costing as much over the long haul as if they had taken out a conventional mortgage in the first place (with some penalty, but not killer). Group 3: find ways to let those who can make affordable mortgage payments keep their houses (some can't), subsidized by those who made big profits from making these loans in the first place (not taxpayers in general or future legitimate borrowers).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
<<Why do you think that future house purchasers should subsidize previous house purchasers that purchased more than they can really afford?>>

I don't think this. I think the CEO of Countrywide who made hundreds of billions from predatory lending should be the one to pay.


That's what I meant here - http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=26098873

Countrywide should be held responsible, at least in part, for the bad loans they made. In some ways, it could be considered fraud, loaning money at teaser rates to someone that you know cannot afford that loan at the real rates as defined by the APR of the loan, and then, with that knowledge, selling those loans packaged as AAA, AA, or A-rated packages. Frankly, Countrywide perhaps should be the "big one" that is permitted to fail.

There are ways of working these things out that are good economics and fair.

I haven't seen any good and fair suggestions. Do you have any links to such proposals?

I don't want a bailout of someone who was house flipping

How exactly do you determine if it was house flipping or not? What if it was the first house being flipped?

and I don't think someone who got a low teaser rate should be let off the hook.

They were already let off the hook with all those previous years of below market rate interest rates. Not to mention that most of them have been living "rent free" for a few months.

But a lot of the people who are in foreclosure, disproportionately minorities, were subjected to predatory lending. And those responsible for making these loans, or those who bought them up with the idea of making big money on high rates, are the ones who should lose out. I've seen some good proposals about avoiding foreclosure by providing affordable loans with the homeowner sacrificing a substantial proportion of future equity in the home.

This is a very good idea and one that I could support. But I still don't understand how keeping someone in a home they cannot really afford is helping them or anyone. Those homes have all sorts of other higher expenses associated with them when compared to a more modestly priced home.

Nobody wins with massive foreclosures. But I want to see the predatory lenders and the big banks and the hedge funds, not communities or those predated upon pay the price.

In some ways, the big banks and big mortgage originators have already paid a price - the value of their businesses have greatly declined, and many of the smaller ones have gone completely out of business. But the big ones should not be let off the hook and the current owners should have to forfeit much of their ownership if any bailout begins.

The communities are paying, and will continue to pay, the price anyway since they have a bunch of people living there that cannot truly afford to live there and aren't maintaining their properties properly, and haven't, and won't, pay the homeowners association dues (thus causing everyone else to pay more since the expenses remain the same).

Actually, so far, the only folks not to pay a price yet are the home"owners" themselves. Not only did they put little or nothing down on their home, and pay a below market rate for all these years, but they've lived "rent free" for 6, 7, or more months! Oh, and Angelo Mozillo also hasn't paid a price yet, but he will eventually.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Why do you think that future house purchasers should subsidize previous house purchasers that purchased more than they can really afford?

How does it help you for your neighbor to be foreclosed? The house isn't going to sell for $250,000. It may not even sell for $200,000. And when it does sell, that house is going to be part of the neighborhood comps, which means that your house is now worth $200,000 or less. Nobody wins when the homeowner gets roughed up in this market; not the homeowner, not the lending agency, and surely not the neighbors.

Hedge
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
<<Why do you think that future house purchasers should subsidize previous house purchasers that purchased more than they can really afford?>>

How does it help you for your neighbor to be foreclosed? The house isn't going to sell for $250,000. It may not even sell for $200,000. And when it does sell, that house is going to be part of the neighborhood comps, which means that your house is now worth $200,000 or less. Nobody wins when the homeowner gets roughed up in this market; not the homeowner, not the lending agency, and surely not the neighbors.


But it isn't about "me", certainly not primarily. Primarily, it's about the neighbor, and the people who lent him money. Secondarily, it's about the neighborhood, of which I am a small part of.

But if you want to talk about the neighborhood and me, then here it is. The neighbor hasn't paid his homeowners association dues for at least 3 quarters, and it will be 4 quarters by the end of the year. The rest of the people in our neighborhood are making up for that lack of payment with higher assessments. The neighbor also has stopped paying his homeowners insurance bill, so if a hurricane or a fire damages or destroys the house, there is no coverage. The neighbor has also stopped paying the lawn and pool service, so the lawn is overgrown and the pool isn't looking too good either. The house also needs some repairs done, and really needs some roof repairs or perhaps even a new roof. Another few months of such substandard maintenance and it will be worth even less than it is today in the current depressed market. And another few years of such lack of maintenance and it will be worth nothing more than the value of the land it sits on. As far as the neighborhood is concerned, the best thing would be a quick foreclosure, followed by a sale at a lower price to someone who an afford to maintain it properly.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Another few months of such substandard maintenance and it will be worth even less than it is today in the current depressed market. And another few years of such lack of maintenance and it will be worth nothing more than the value of the land it sits on. As far as the neighborhood is concerned, the best thing would be a quick foreclosure, followed by a sale at a lower price to someone who an afford to maintain it properly.

Is there such a buyer? What happens to your neighborhood if the house sets empty for a year or two? If there are buyers standing on the corner, then, sure, throw the bum out. But...

Hedge
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
But it isn't about "me", certainly not primarily. Primarily, it's about the neighbor, and the people who lent him money. Secondarily, it's about the neighborhood, of which I am a small part of.

We're looking at two completely different worlds.

The world I'm looking at is some minority dominated outskirt of Detroit where predatory lenders took advantage of people who didn't understand, with no regulator saying no, because market forces solve all.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The world I'm looking at is some minority dominated outskirt of Detroit where predatory lenders took advantage of people who didn't understand, with no regulator saying no, because market forces solve all.

I kinda doubt that that's your actual neighborhood, Loki, but OK, maybe. OTOH, I do live in an older near city neighborhood, and the city has bought a few houses in the area. The renters, low income minority families, in general, are difficult neighbors. The cultural divide is large, and they have no personal equity in the neighborhood. They are usually nice people, as people, but they don't have the "living peacefully and quietly next to others" bit down. Don't think for a minute that your city will not buy some of these foreclosures, regardless of where they're located. You may wind up with the neighbors from hell, like we do at times. When the city starts buying these properties, then you can really have a neighborhood in trouble.

Hedge
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I kinda doubt that that's your actual neighborhood, Loki, but OK, maybe

No, not my neighborhood, though we have plenty of non-foreclosed homes sitting around. But there are such neighborhoods not too far away.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
<<But it isn't about "me", certainly not primarily. Primarily, it's about the neighbor, and the people who lent him money. Secondarily, it's about the neighborhood, of which I am a small part of.>>

We're looking at two completely different worlds.

The world I'm looking at is some minority dominated outskirt of Detroit where predatory lenders took advantage of people who didn't understand, with no regulator saying no, because market forces solve all.


I agree that there are 2 different worlds. But the vast majority of the money involved is concentrated in places like parts of CA, South Florida, and other such places that experienced inordinate runups in home prices. Solving the Detroit, Cleveland, and other such areas will only go a small way towards solving the overall credit problem.

But even though the numbers are smaller in places like Detroit, the essence of the problem remains the same. People were sold houses that they couldn't really afford. And they still can't afford them. But I agree that anyone who was swindled ought to get satisfaction from the big banks and investors that profited greatly from the fraud perpetrated with these kinds of mortgages.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Not in my hood' either. And we have a couple of foreclosures. But what is wrong with a price decline. We buy stocks, and they go down. We buy bonds (bond funds) and they go down, why not the house. Isn't it really the down side of volatility we are upset about. My house is not an investment, but I would like to know that I am getting a return that is slightly greater than inflation over the holding period. For the last five years I have been the recipient of extremely nice appreciation - so much so that my house could lose 25-30% in value and I would still claim it to be an absolutely outstanding investment to the tune of 10% annualized. If I had bought Google at 400, saw it rise to 747.20 and now it is down to 632.50, I would be sad - it is a paper loss. But I would not expect some one come bail me out!!! Read as Group 1 - House Flipper!

Now I realize for some folks this is not a paper loss - it is real. And I know first hand how that feels as I purchased a home in Phoenix circa 1980. I did what I could to buy that house, and I would have taken a teaser rate - back then it was called a three-two-one buy down. But again I have the wisdom of years - and a few down markets to let me know - Real Estate does not always go up. So, If I had bought 1000 shares of Google on margin at 747.20 and again we are down to 632.50 - Well, It is time for me to pay the piper - no bail out! If they were smart enough to think about taking a teaser rate and refinancing later - because miraculously their house was 50% more or they would be making 50% more income - then Group 2 - Gaming the System -ers - You were an idiot! It is time for you to pay.

So, what about group 3

Taken advantage of? Well that is hard to prove, so now we can look at some regulation (which I hate as a solution) or perhaps market discipline which seems to be a bit better now! But with the announcement today of another write down, I think the investors are paying. And another story I saw shows the impact of firing the CEO's who headed this mess is going to cost some companies.

I am all for helping out those who want to and can demostrate the resonsibility to stay in the home. Fix the rate, give up a portion of equity, stay the foreclosure process if requirements are met - Beyond that - Well, taken advantage of or not - if they can not afford the house, downsize!!!! You made a bad bet!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And from the looks of it CNN thinks this declin is about what I will get.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/price_rent_ratios/
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
How does it help you for your neighbor to be foreclosed? The house isn't going to sell for $250,000. It may not even sell for $200,000. And when it does sell, that house is going to be part of the neighborhood comps, which means that your house is now worth $200,000 or less. Nobody wins when the homeowner gets roughed up in this market;

Hey, no problem. You can just pony up and help this guy make his mortgage payments--the one he can't afford on his own--so he won't get foreclosed on.

This thread is a great example of the fallacy where man A sees that man B is having trouble and decides what man C should do for B.

Markr33 has it right. As for "predatory lending"---how did that work? Did Countrywide lurk in a dark alley and accost people and put a gun to their head to force them to take out a mortgage?

Best to not forget about unintended consequences. If you force lenders to eat the loss, then you've effectively changed mortgages to unsecured loans. And the interest rates will go accordingly--see your credit card statement to get an idea of what the interest rates will be.

Or perhaps you'd like for mortgages to be like the good old days---20% down or you don't get the loan.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Best to not forget about unintended consequences. If you force lenders to eat the loss, then you've effectively changed mortgages to unsecured loans. And the interest rates will go accordingly--see your credit card statement to get an idea of what the interest rates will be.

Well, I suppose a recession edging on depression would be best. Never mind.

Hedge
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Or perhaps you'd like for mortgages to be like the good old days---20% down or you don't get the loan."

I think that's exactly right.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The neighbor hasn't paid his homeowners association dues for at least 3 quarters, and it will be 4 quarters by the end of the year. The rest of the people in our neighborhood are making up for that lack of payment with higher assessments.

Mark,
I've been chewing this over for the past hour while I was grocery shopping. Like me, you have a neighbor problem. In my case, I should probably have checked with the housing authority before making a purchase. Was there any due diligence that you should have done on your end?

But, forget all that. Your biggest problem, after the deadbeat owner, seems to be a deadbeat HOA. It sounds like they have completely abrogated their responsibilities, and possibly, in the process, voided your CC&Rs. You might want to check with a lawyer. If your CC&Rs have been broken, then there's no point in paying dues, anymore.

On a personal level, I do feel your pain. Honestly. I'm about the only one in the area with the guts to discuss the problem with my neighbors. The rest of the group are simply afraid of them because of skin color. In your case, it's not a matter of discussing the problem with these people, though. But, you do need to look to your HOA and make them meet their responsibilities.

It's not on the personal level that I disagree with you. It's on the general economic level. If there was just a bum here and there, I'd agree with you: toss them out and let God sort it out. Unfortunately, the problem is just too big. There are whole neighborhoods where there are only one or two houses with grass and the rest are simply empty and abandoned.

Hedge
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Taken advantage of? Well that is hard to prove, so now we can look at some regulation (which I hate as a solution) or perhaps market discipline which seems to be a bit better now!

I'm out about 50 grand because I was foolish enough to have believed that stock brokers employed by major brokerages worked in the interest of their clients. I'm well-educated and not normally naive. But I did believe the hype that I was dealing with experts. If a doctor or lawyer or even a professor did these kind of things they would be in jail or at least out of a license to kill.

I don't buy into the buer beware crap. What mortgage brokers did, especially to minority "clients" who dreamed they could participate in the American Dream, was no different than a scam artist preying on a lonely widow to steal her life savings. Legal, of course, but the politicians make damn sure big time crooks get protected in the name of free enterprise. I much prefer the honest local loan shark.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I don't buy into the buer beware crap. What mortgage brokers did, especially to minority "clients" who dreamed they could participate in the American Dream, was no different than a scam artist preying on a lonely widow to steal her life savings.

I had a run-in with a WaMu loan officer years ago on a refi. During the first visit, he made a number of promises about discounts and stuff, and numbered them in on the margins. Of course, I was stupid enough to think that meant something. Wrong. When I went in for the signing, he gave me a closing figure that was several thousand$ off from what I thought I had agreed to. I reminded him of his promise, showed him his own handwriting on my copy, and told him I simply wouldn't go through with the refi on any terms other than those. Dum-de-dum, he comes back "from the manager" and says they'd be glad to change the terms of the loan to meet my demands. I'm not the dumbest guy in the class. I wrote code and solved complex technical problems for a living. In spite of that, I was almost taken, and would have been if I had allowed his smooth talk to win the day.

Hedge
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
<<The neighbor hasn't paid his homeowners association dues for at least 3 quarters, and it will be 4 quarters by the end of the year. The rest of the people in our neighborhood are making up for that lack of payment with higher assessments.>>

I've been chewing this over for the past hour while I was grocery shopping. Like me, you have a neighbor problem.



Not really. Out of about 110 homes, we have 1 foreclosure, which actually was purchased somehow just before foreclosure, and one deadbeat.

In my case, I should probably have checked with the housing authority before making a purchase. Was there any due diligence that you should have done on your end?

We did lots of DD, we live in this subdivision for 8 years, and my sister and family have lived here in the same subdivision for 10 years (and in a different subdivision nearby for 7 years prior to that).

But, forget all that. Your biggest problem, after the deadbeat owner, seems to be a deadbeat HOA. It sounds like they have completely abrogated their responsibilities, and possibly, in the process, voided your CC&Rs. You might want to check with a lawyer. If your CC&Rs have been broken, then there's no point in paying dues, anymore.

No, the HOA is very strong, south Florida is known for strong HOA's. They have been known to bring lawsuits against delinquent owners (one is currently in progress), and have attached liens whenever necessary. There have been very few problems in the last 10 years, in fact, the number of problems over 10 years can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

On a personal level, I do feel your pain. Honestly. I'm about the only one in the area with the guts to discuss the problem with my neighbors. The rest of the group are simply afraid of them because of skin color. In your case, it's not a matter of discussing the problem with these people, though. But, you do need to look to your HOA and make them meet their responsibilities.

It's not on the personal level that I disagree with you. It's on the general economic level. If there was just a bum here and there, I'd agree with you: toss them out and let God sort it out. Unfortunately, the problem is just too big. There are whole neighborhoods where there are only one or two houses with grass and the rest are simply empty and abandoned.


Neighborhoods have "died" throughout history, especially in the USA. Apparently, it's just a fact of life.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
There are whole neighborhoods where there are only one or two houses with grass and the rest are simply empty and abandoned.

Neighborhoods have "died" throughout history, especially in the USA. Apparently, it's just a fact of life.


Perhaps I should have said *new* neighborhoods.

Hedge
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<<There are whole neighborhoods where there are only one or two houses with grass and the rest are simply empty and abandoned.>>>

<<Neighborhoods have "died" throughout history, especially in the USA. Apparently, it's just a fact of life.>>

Perhaps I should have said *new* neighborhoods.


Here in South Florida, second or third in record foreclosures, I am not aware of any such new neighborhoods with only one or two houses occupied. I have read about Cleveland, but those are all [very] old neighborhoods. I have heard anecdotes about such neighborhoods in outer Phoenix, but am somewhat doubtful because if it were true, it is likely that CNN, etc would do big highlighted stories about those neighborhoods with lots of pictures.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Mark,
there is an old saying:

"If you owe the bank 30,000 dollars, you have a problem. If you owe the bank 3 billion dollars, the bank has a problem."

Usually that kind of thing only applies to large debtors. The current situation has changed that somewhat - the total amount owed by troubled debtors is so high that it is the creditors that have a problem. That, in fact, the SYSTEM has a problem. It may very well be that in order to save the financial system deals will be cut that in the end "reward" the irresponsibility of many (certainly not of all).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
Why do you think that future house purchasers should subsidize previous house purchasers that purchased more than they can really afford?

How does it help you for your neighbor to be foreclosed? The house isn't going to sell for $250,000. It may not even sell for $200,000. And when it does sell, that house is going to be part of the neighborhood comps, which means that your house is now worth $200,000 or less. Nobody wins when the homeowner gets roughed up in this market; not the homeowner, not the lending agency, and surely not the neighbors.

Hedge



Nobody wins? How about those of us who rent, and who would like to be able to afford to own a house someday? Those of us who have been waiting until we have stable jobs and enough money saved up, who haven't rushed out to buy a house that we know we can't really afford.

It's not all about protecting your investments--some of us want to find a nice place to live. Let the overinflated housing prices fall!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The simple way to find out who owns your mortgage is to stop making payments for a few months. You will be contacted by the mortgage holder.

Well, you just might be contacted by the county sheriff, as he and his boys drop by to move your furniture out onto the sidewalk.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Well, you just might be contacted by the county sheriff, as he and his boys drop by to move your furniture out onto the sidewalk. - Rayvt | Date: 12/16/2007 2:26:47 PM | Number: 22512

There is a little detail known as due process and proper notice in the United States. That all has to take place well before the Sheriff arrives!

Kahuna,CFA


Yes, I know about that. Obviously you've never lived in Chicago and experienced their creative "sewer service". ;-)

There's another creative technique that some landlords reportedly use with delinquent renters who are ducking the process servers. Send a buddy over in the early morning to sit on the front porch. When the process server shows up and asks "Joe Smith?" the buddy says, "Yeah? Who wants to know?" The server takes this as an affirmative answer.
Print the post Back To Top