| Author | Post |
|---|
Bambi
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 04:45 pm |
|
Thank you Anne for posting that. What a disaster we are in. But, we recover from disasters and we will again.
Anne. Do you want to come over for coffee this a.m. and talk about real estate in your area? What we discussed before? It's gorgeous out here this morning....the clouds dancing in and out of the mountains, wisping like lite smoke between the peaks. I'm in a good mood, so it's the best time to catch me. 
 
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 04:03 pm |
|
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2008/07/fannie-and-fred.html
How to fix Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: Nationalize 'em
9:02 PM, July 10, 2008
William Poole has long warned that mortgage titans Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had grown so large that they posed a serious threat to the U.S. financial system.
It looks like the former Federal Reserve policymaker had it right. Stocks of both companies are in meltdown mode this week, sending ripples through U.S. markets, on fears that they don’t have the capital they’ll need to survive rising mortgage defaults.
So let’s admit the obvious, Poole suggests: Fannie and Freddie should be nationalized.
In America, nationalization is among the dirtiest of words. It conjures the image of the government grabbing control of private-sector assets.
But Fannie and Freddie, which buy or guarantee mortgages to support the housing market, are strange animals. They are owned by shareholders, but they were chartered by the government, and they’ve grown to their gargantuan sizes ($843 billion in assets at Fannie, $803 billion at Freddie) because investors worldwide believe their debts have the implicit backing of the U.S. Treasury.
If Fannie and Freddie face a wipeout of their capital because of loan losses, then, Uncle Sam couldn’t possibly allow the companies to collapse. So why not just nationalize them now, turning them into full-fledged government agencies and thereby taking away the uncertainty on Wall Street about their ability to continue buying home loans?
Poole, who was president of the Fed’s St. Louis branch until he retired in March, said in an interview with Bloomberg News this week that nationalization was "the only practical course" for Fannie and Freddie.
Though he’s often labeled a curmudgeon, the 71-year-old Poole isn’t alone in his view of what to do with Fannie and Freddie, which combined either own or guarantee a total of $5 trillion of U.S. home loans, nearly half the entire market.
"We have to stop pretending these are private companies," said Christopher Whalen, a managing director at research firm Institutional Risk Analytics.
There has always been an inherent conflict in the structure of Fannie and Freddie, Whalen notes: Their shareholders would reap the benefits if the companies took big risks and won, while it was presumed Uncle Sam would have to pick up the pieces if the companies blundered.
In Washington, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and others want Fannie and Freddie to get back on their feet on their own. But if the companies try to raise massive sums of new capital by issuing stock, they will severely dilute the ownership of their current shareholders (that’s a big reason the stocks have nosedived).
And what if, six months from now, the loan losses turn out to be so massive that any additional capital the companies raised in the interim is burned up?
Politically difficult as it may be, Whalen says, if you make Fannie and Freddie government agencies now, "you take a major source of instability out of the market. You don’t have to worry about it anymore." That would be one less issue for the housing market, which obviously has plenty.
Given the dilution risks they already face, shareholders of Fannie and Freddie ought to welcome a buyout even at these depressed prices, Whalen says.
In terms of stock market value, all that’s left of Fannie and Freddie now is about $18.2 billion, combined. Wall Street wouldn’t even notice that amount disappearing from the public market.
|
Bambi
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 9th, 2008 03:53 pm |
|
LATE BREAKING NEWS
[size=July 8, 2008]
1. FY 2009 Budget for the Arizona Department of Real Estate
2. Revising Industry Fees
3. Fall 2008 Community Outreach and Education (COE) Program – 3 CE Credits
4. Foreclosure Prevention Hotline 1-877-448-1211 and AZ211.gov resources
5. Assessment shows effects of fissures
6. Mortgage Loan Originators Bill passed
7. Pack to School Campaign
8. Dialog: The periodic bulletin from The Arizona Department of Real Estate
1. FY 2009 Budget for the Arizona Department of Real Estate - the FY 2009 Budget approved by the Governor and Legislature includes an operating budget reduction for the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) in the amount of $461,400. The ADRE Team will continue to deliver quality customer service to our clients and customers. Your input and feedback is important and valued as we strive to do more with less. For example, despite a budget reduction of $230,800 in FY 2008 and an increase in violations, we reduced our pending caseload in Enforcement and Compliance from 372 on July 1, 2007 to 242 on July 1, 2008.
2. Revising Industry Fees- the Department of Real Estate is pleased to announce that as of July 7, 2008, it has revised the fee schedule for licensing and services provided to the Industry. Sam Wercinski, Arizona’s Real Estate Commissioner stated that “We have eliminated fees for real estate licensees being hired or transferred, expecting to save practitioners nearly $400,000.00 in Fiscal Year 2009. Eliminating this expense will also provide savings to companies who wish to consolidate branch offices or merge with another firm.” The Department also lowered the online license renewal fee for the second year in a row. This will encourage more agents and brokers to use our online system when they renew for a four-year license. Individuals applying for a real estate license will now pay more for the initial two-year license which Commissioner Wercinski believes better reflects its value. Legal Subdividers will also share in the savings with a 10% reduction in the initial filing fee. See our new fee schedule.
tanderson@azre.gov to register for this free program. Find the location and date of our COE nearest you at http://www.azre.gov or by clicking here. Special thanks to our hosts for each COE.
4. Foreclosure Prevention Hotline 1-877-448-1211 and http://www.AZ211.gov resources – Share these sources of help with those you know and post them on your own websites. Working together, we can help more people in need of assistance, stabilize neighborhood values by preventing foreclosures and successfully fight blight currently rising in areas with large numbers of vacant home.
5. Assessment shows effects of fissures- The Pinal County Assessor's Office slashed the value of a fissure-riddled residential property by 60 percent last week - a first-of-its-kind move that residents and experts laud as precedent setting. Read the East Valley Tribune article at http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/119904
6. Mortgage Loan Originators Bill signed into law-Gov. Janet Napolitano has signed legislation to license loan originators, a measure strongly backed by Commissioner Sam Wercinski and many members of Arizona’s real estate industry. Read the Capitol Times article at http://www.azcapitoltimes.com/group.cfm?sect=breakingnews
7. PACK TO SCHOOL- Last year, nearly 10,000 students received supplies as part of this effort. This year’s goal is to collect a greater number of supplies to benefit a larger number of students. Participating schools are located throughout the state and are selected based on their percentage of students qualifying for the Free and Reduced Lunch program. The 2008 Campaign is effective from 7/1/08 to7/31/08. Look for collection boxes in the lobbies of the Department of Real Estate and throughout the buildings in both Phoenix and Tucson. Please let us know about your contribution so we may thank you! Contact Mary Utley at mutley@azre.gov.
8. Dialog- The periodic bulletin from The Arizona Department of Real Estate is now posted - Volume 2008 — Issue 4 at http://www.azre.gov
###
Mary Utley
Assistant Commissioner of Public Relations
Arizona Department of Real Estate
|
Bambi
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 30th, 2008 02:56 pm |
|
Rates have improved a bit as stocks have been HAMMERED! The rush to secure bonds has helped mortgage rates but it might not last long. Remember that good news for the economy is normally good for stocks and bad for bonds. So far the news has been poor so we benefit for a while. LOCK in those loans!!
We are almost through the month of June and our positive housing market continues. PASS THE WORD!! You are the voice of the industry and your positive voice will keep this going. Home values have come down to a point where buyers can afford a home once again and not have to rent. Let's get them back to where they REALLY want to be - in their Own Home!!.
Are you familiar with the Foreign National Loans? These are for people that do not have any residency status in the US. Many Canadians are buying homes on this program. It is VERY easy to do! If you want to go after that market drop me a line and I will be happy to give you more information.
It'll be hot this weekend, so wear lots of sun screen and take water when you go out! The monsoons are just around the corner. Watch out for them in the late afternoon.
...from Bud Levy....Mortgage consultant.
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 16th, 2008 12:20 am |
|
http://www.nuwireinvestor.com/blogs/investorcentric/2008/06/fha-in-jeopardy.html?ref=patrick.net
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 2008
FHA In Jeopardy?
With all the talk coming from politicians about how they plan to use the FHA to save the housing market and the economy, it may be a shocker to know that the FHA is struggling mightily right now. The FHA had to withdraw $4.6 billion from its $21 billion capital reserve fund in May to cover losses, according to the New York Times.
“Let me repeat: F.H.A. is solvent,” FHA commissioner Brian Montgomery said Monday in a speech at the National Press Club, according to the New York Times. “However, no insurance company can sustain that amount of additional costs year after year and still survive. Unless we take action to mitigate these losses, F.H.A. will soon either have to shut down or rely on appropriations to operate.”
Something has to change or else the FHA will soon be under water. This is a bit scary to think about because right now, FHA loans make up a good portion of the mortgage market, and an even larger portion in many low income areas. If the FHA were shut down, the real estate market would be in for a huge blow. In reality, though, it is unlikely the FHA will actually shut down even if they become insolvent. Instead, the government would float them the money they needed to continue operations until such a time as they could stand on their own two feet again. As you probably guessed that means taxpayers would ultimately be subsidizing the FHA.
There is one glaring reason why the FHA is struggling right now, according to Montgomery. He blames the seller financed down payment program, otherwise known as down payment assistance. In this program the seller donates the required down payment (typically 3 percent) to a non-profit corporation which then gives the money (minus a fee, of course) to the buyer, who uses it as the necessary down payment. Sound a little sketchy to you? I can assure you I feel the exact same way. Nonetheless, this program has been around for years--and it has been a problem for years as well. 60 percent of the FHA losses can be directly attributed to this program, according to the New York Times, even though these loans only make up around 35 percent of the FHA’s portfolio.
The FHA has been trying to get rid of this program for years, but has met strong resistance and been unsuccessful. Backers of the program say it provides much-needed assistance to low income and minority families who would otherwise be unable to buy homes, according to the New York Times. Naturally, the FHA is continuing its fight against the program, but based on their past experience, it doesn’t appear they are likely to be successful.
“If there’s any justice in this country, they will fail yet again,” Scott Syphax, president of Nehemiah Corporation of America, which provides such loans, said in the New York Times. Wow, you’ve got to love that mentality--if there is any justice in America, we should continue putting people in houses they can’t afford and potentially break the FHA, which would cost taxpayers billions upon billions of dollars. Is it just me or is this guy’s idea of “justice” a little skewed?
Ultimately, whether the down payment assistance programs stay or go, the housing market will likely suffer. If they stay, the FHA will probably need taxpayer support; if they go, then we are losing 35 percent of the FHA loans out there which means we would have even fewer people buying homes. In my mind, though, the right way to go is to ban these programs. The statistics show beyond a doubt that these loans result in an extremely high default rate (about 3 times the FHA norm) and it is not fair to pass this burden on to taxpayers.
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 16th, 2008 12:03 am |
|
June 9, 2008 2:18PM
Take on the News: The Pension Fund Land Bust
By Brian Sullivan
Its a story that hasn’t gotten much attention but should.
LandSource Development Communities, a California real estate partnership, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection this weekend. The company was a real estate venture involving homebuilder Lennar (NYSE: LEN: 15.35, +0.37, +2.46%), a unit of private equity firm Cerberus, and MW Housing Partners.
The problem is that one of the major investors in LandSource is CalPers, the giant California pension fund that handles the investments of around 1.5 million state workers. In a sign of terrible timing, CalPers invested nearly $1 billion dollars in the venture in February of last year. The real estate bubble began to burst just weeks afterward. According to the Wall Street Journal’s Matt Corkery, CalPers is likely to lose most of that investment. Of course, CalPers itself really doesn’t have money. CalPers invests the money of the state employees and retirees.
No one is suggesting this will be a serious hit to CalPers. The fund runs $250 billion dollars, so this investment represents less than 1/2 of 1% of its capital. Its the poor foresight and timing of the investment that raises eyebrows. At the same time CalPers was no doubt negotiating its investment in the LandSource deal, hedge funds such as Paulson & Company were already not only avoiding real esate in February of 2007, but actively positioning itself to profit from real estates decline.
To be fair to CalPers, there was much misguided optimism from the investment. Witness the comments from the head of the the firm that invested in LandSource:
“We are excited to be investing in such prime property in Los Angeles, a market that we have favored for its long-term growth prospects,” said Victor B. MacFarlane, founder and managing principal of MacFarlane Partners. “This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity (italics mine) that few pension managers and investors have the resources and the capabilities to participate in thanks in large part to the flexibility and vision of our long time partner, CalPERS.”
From “once in a lifetime” to Chapter 11 in less than two years. While that type of rapid destruction of wealth is fairly common in get rich quick schemes profiled in pictureless ads in the back of magazine, its an amazing fall from grace for some of the most highly regarded investors in the country.
Brian
|
Bambi
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 13th, 2008 11:37 pm |
|
[size=Press Release]
[size= ]
For Immediate Release Contact: Joe Pyritz
June 11, 2008 (520) 866-6226
Heather Murphy
(520) 866-6057
[size=Supervisors Discuss Changes to Subdivision Regulations During Work Session]
[size= ]
FLORENCE- The Pinal County Board of Supervisors addressed two possible changes to the Subdivision Regulations during a regular meeting in Florence .
The Pinal County Subdivision Regulations, which were adopted in December 2006, address the conditions developers must meet to get a final plat by the Board of Supervisors.
During Wednesday’s work session, the Supervisors were informed of a proposed amendment to the regulations regarding the allowance of third party trust agreements in lieu of bond money as an assurance that infrastructure improvements will be completed in the development.
Planning and Zoning attorney Nicole Weber said that other counties and cities in Arizona have utilized the same type of agreements with developers.
“We have accepted cash, letters of credit and bonds,” Weber said of how developers pay the assurance bond. “Under this type of third party agreement the property being developed is placed in escrow with a title agency and is held until the improvements are made. We do not take ownership of the land. We just sign the agreement with the trustee.”
The agreement would be made when the final plat is awarded, Weber said.
Once the development is completed, county staff will inspect the property and submit a report on the improvements made to the project. If all the agreed upon improvements are made, the land is released back to the developer for sale to the public.
If the developer is unable to make the required improvements, the county can abandon the land or replat it, if desired.
Chairman David Snider asked if the county could release some of the lots to the developer once improvements are made to a portion of the development.
“There is a maximum of three partial releases which may be allowed for each recorded plat,” Public Works Director Greg Stanley said of the proposed change to the regulation. “Our thought is that 25 percent of the lots total in a single plat could be released.”
“I find your logic to be persuasive,” Chairman Snider responded. “We ought to use that as a reasonable precedent.”
District Two Supervisor Sandie Smith asked the staff to examine a change to language in the agreement in the event that the development would be annexed by an incorporated city or town.
“Would the developer follow our agreement or be subject to the annexing body?” Supervisor Smith asked. “I think the developer should follow the city’s codes once the land is annexed.”
Weber said that staff would look into the matter and bring the Board an answer.
The other change to the Subdivision Regulations would encompass modifications in a recorded project.
Minor changes, such as technical errors would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors rather than having to go back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval.
Any major changes to the public infrastructure such as open space, school sites and public lands would be subject to a replatting. These would have to go back the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval before going to the Board of Supervisors.
The Subdivision Regulation changes will be brought forward to the Supervisors at a later date for a public hearing.
Road name changes in the County
The Supervisors approved a name change to South Blewitt Road located north of Gold Canyon . The new name of the 990 foot roadway will be South Tonto View.
The name change was initiated by citizens’ petitions with 55 percent of the residents signing in favor of South Tonto View.
The Supervisors approved an initiative to begin proceedings on the renaming a portion of East Aravaipa Road to East Old Camp Grant Place .
The location of the road is north of Mammoth on Highway 77.
The name change is hoped to reduce the confusion some people have encountered with the road and the trouble some have experienced with receiving packages.
The name change will also honor the former Camp Grant Army post which was located near the road.
####
|
Bambi
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 19th, 2008 03:47 pm |
|
Why is it that some realtors are so lazy during these difficult times? This is the time they should be working smarter and making things happen in what ever market is active at the time. Today, it is the foreclosure and short sale market.
But where are they when it comes time to showing those properties out here. Those realtors that live in other cities who choose to list properties out here, better either come out here and show those properties to your clients or I will be taking them over.
I am receiving countless calls from clients whose realtors are just sending the clients they have never even met other than the phone, and sending them out here....not meeting them out here, but some are calling us to let them in thru the lockbox system. Use our key....do them a favor. Some are even giving out the code to the buyer so they don't have to spend the gas to come out here.
The answer is NO. Get in your car; pay the gas to come out or give up the listing. Do not give out the codes. Get your lazy ..... out here and serve your client.....one more calls I get from a realtor asking me to do that, they will be turned in to the Board. If your realtor is just sending people out here, best stop him. He must accompany the client. Worse yet; some are not even clients....they are thieves, setting up a scam. And once the word gets out that codes are being given out, you will see a crime wave.
Last edited on Mon May 19th, 2008 03:49 pm by
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 2767 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 19th, 2008 08:12 am |
|
| http://www.theinternationalforecaster.com/International_Forecaster_Weekly/Goldilocks_Gets_Eaten_By_The_Three_Bears
|
Bambi
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 18th, 2008 10:57 pm |
|
ajBookchin wrote: How about the fair tax???
Even better....... http://thomas.loc.gov/ There's a bill in Congress now for it.
Search:
Bill #S.1025 Now what happens to the 16th Amendment of the Constitution?Last edited on Mon May 19th, 2008 12:15 am by
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 579 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 18th, 2008 08:08 pm |
|
How about the fair tax???
|
Bambi
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 18th, 2008 07:52 pm |
|
A Flat Tax is what we need. Get rid of the IRS and all the rest of the bureaucracy that keeps building up. Pretty soon, we will be so convoluted, that we won't know if we are coming or going.
Already Chase Mtg. can't figure out my mortgage because of the home burning down. They still think there is a home there. They can't seem to locate the "starting point" in their system. Too many people handling the paperwork....too many departments necessary to do what one can do. It's taken them 6 months. Now they are still escrowing too much money for "fire insurance'? Can't seem to talk them, the escrow division of chase, out of thinking there is a home there, so now must locate at what point they are in the system.
It will all be lost in cyberspace someday. Let's get back to basics.
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Sun May 18th, 2008 07:33 pm |
|
QCVillager wrote:
Anne Reed wrote:
I am not advocating bankruptcy. I would, however, fear the alternative, a substantial tax liability in an economy which is not generating sufficient after tax dollars for short sellers to pay down that tax debt, and accruing penalties and interest as time passes.
Real estate booms will come and go, economic fortunes will fluctuate, but taxes and death are certainties. Until the taxes due for short sales are paid, these unfortunates will not be likely to obtain a new mortgage, a new car or unsecured credit to handle personal and family emergencies.
federal government revised mortgage debt rules by no longer taxing borrowers on the amount lenders forgive.
Under a Feb. 12 revised IRS rule, homeowners whose mortgage debt was partly or entirely forgiven may be able to claim tax relief with newly revised Form 982. Previously, debt forgiveness was reported by lenders as taxable income to borrowers.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f982.pdf
It looks business friendly but doesn't seem to offer much for the typical residential short seller. I hope I'm wrong.
Time will tell.
Regards,
Anne
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 579 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 18th, 2008 06:56 pm |
|
gk wrote: Banks are in trouble due to one reason.
GREED. They pushed ARM's very heavily and invested in derivitives to the extreme. Seems that Banks are able to make what ever kind of stupid investment mistake possible and the fed just bails them out. Eletism at it's best.
Yes, but it was also greedy homeowners who wanted to buy more house they could really afford.
We need to teach our children...
Say "NO" to drugs.
Say "NO" to ARMS when interest rates are historically low.
|
QCVillager
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 18th, 2008 03:34 pm |
|
Anne Reed wrote:
I am not advocating bankruptcy. I would, however, fear the alternative, a substantial tax liability in an economy which is not generating sufficient after tax dollars for short sellers to pay down that tax debt, and accruing penalties and interest as time passes.
Real estate booms will come and go, economic fortunes will fluctuate, but taxes and death are certainties. Until the taxes due for short sales are paid, these unfortunates will not be likely to obtain a new mortgage, a new car or unsecured credit to handle personal and family emergencies.
federal government revised mortgage debt rules by no longer taxing borrowers on the amount lenders forgive.
Under a Feb. 12 revised IRS rule, homeowners whose mortgage debt was partly or entirely forgiven may be able to claim tax relief with newly revised Form 982. Previously, debt forgiveness was reported by lenders as taxable income to borrowers.
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Sun May 18th, 2008 01:33 pm |
|
Bambi wrote:
Bankruptcy laws are much more restrictive today, and if it's only the home debt you are in trouble with, why include the other debts? I don't think you can discriminate which debts you include and those you don't in a bankruptcy. .I think that used to be the case anyway.
Besides , the time for waiting to regain your credit worthiness is about the same....perhaps longer for a bankruptcy. With a foreclosure or short sale, you will probably be able to qualify to buy again in about a year for most, as long as you have been building your credit; longer for other types of programs, like the Dept. of Agriculture's Rural Program.....no money down, but foreclosures must be three years old.
We're going to find that lenders tough standards are going to "cost" them business. They will gradually loosen up their standards, and be back to being less restrictive, coming up with all kinds of cool purchasing packages for the homeowners. Otherwise, they starve, and close their doors....adapt.
Another thing....bankruptcy on your credit history will be a stigma. Foreclosure will also be a stigma. And so will the short sale, as you enter it when you are deficient in your payments, and that is what will come up on your credit history.....90 days in the arrears means foreclosure on the credit report and that's how bank's interpret it. Short sales are too new to my knowledge and aren't yet defined on a credit report...I believe.
I am not advocating bankruptcy. I would, however, fear the alternative, a substantial tax liability in an economy which is not generating sufficient after tax dollars for short sellers to pay down that tax debt, and accruing penalties and interest as time passes.
Real estate booms will come and go, economic fortunes will fluctuate, but taxes and death are certainties. Until the taxes due for short sales are paid, these unfortunates will not be likely to obtain a new mortgage, a new car or unsecured credit to handle personal and family emergencies.
The banks have stated that they have little interest in investing in the American markets, but prefer the returns on dollars spent to fortify the emerging economies of India and China (where all the jobs have gone).
Regards,
Anne
|
Bambi
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 18th, 2008 12:46 am |
|
Bankruptcy laws are much more restrictive today, and if it's only the home debt you are in trouble with, why include the other debts? I don't think you can discriminate which debts you include and those you don't in a bankruptcy. .I think that used to be the case anyway.
Besides , the time for waiting to regain your credit worthiness is about the same....perhaps longer for a bankruptcy. With a foreclosure or short sale, you will probably be able to qualify to buy again in about a year for most, as long as you have been building your credit; longer for other types of programs, like the Dept. of Agriculture's Rural Program.....no money down, but foreclosures must be three years old.
We're going to find that lenders tough standards are going to "cost" them business. They will gradually loosen up their standards, and be back to being less restrictive, coming up with all kinds of cool purchasing packages for the homeowners. Otherwise, they starve, and close their doors....adapt.
Another thing....bankruptcy on your credit history will be a stigma. Foreclosure will also be a stigma. And so will the short sale, as you enter it when you are deficient in your payments, and that is what will come up on your credit history.....90 days in the arrears means foreclosure on the credit report and that's how bank's interpret it. Short sales are too new to my knowledge and aren't yet defined on a credit report...I believe.
Last edited on Sun May 18th, 2008 01:06 am by
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Sat May 17th, 2008 10:12 pm |
|
starleen wrote:
Bambi wrote:
Received my weekly "foreclosure" list for the Valley. 1,416 compared to 1587 last week. Let's hope the reduction is a sign of the times and just not a "fluke". I'll keep tracking it.
I think a precursor to foreclosure numbers is short sales and preforeclosures. I don't have historical data but the website I use shows these numbers for Queen Creek (not the whole valley)
Foreclosures: 209
Short Sales: 521
Pre-Foreclosures: 36
I think it is telling that the number of short sales listed is twice the number of foreclosures, and the pre-foreclosures are a mere 36. Pre-foreclosure numbers were in the hundreds a few months ago.
I think owners in trouble and the holding lenders are wising up and opting for the short sale as a win-win situation (or least damage situation). The lender avoids costly foreclosure proceedings and time delays and the owner avoids the stigma of foreclosure on their credit history. However, the short sale still has tax liability issue for the seller (difference between sale price and loan owed is taxed as income or capital gain). But, lenders need to streamline the short sale process. Many of the short sales could fall into foreclosure due to lender beaurocracy.
http://search.foreclosurehomesearch.com/
password this week: 1942
Correct me if I'm wrong, but, it's my understanding that short sales will result in 1099 earnings to sellers and will undoubtedly be taxed stiffly. So, what we really see is a transfer of liability, from financial institutions to the federal government. There will be no bankrupting out of this debt. And inflation is likely to deplete M1 so severely that there is little likelihood the tax debts incurred will be readily paid off. What then? Debtors prison?
Short sales act as a bandaid for a raging cancer. If I were in this situation, I'd rather file bankruptcy while I still can.
Regards,
Anne
|
starleen
Member
| Joined: | Wed Dec 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Coolidge |
| Posts: | 679 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 15th, 2008 05:37 am |
|
Bambi wrote:
Received my weekly "foreclosure" list for the Valley. 1,416 compared to 1587 last week. Let's hope the reduction is a sign of the times and just not a "fluke". I'll keep tracking it.
I think a precursor to foreclosure numbers is short sales and preforeclosures. I don't have historical data but the website I use shows these numbers for Queen Creek (not the whole valley)
Foreclosures: 209
Short Sales: 521
Pre-Foreclosures: 36
I think it is telling that the number of short sales listed is twice the number of foreclosures, and the pre-foreclosures are a mere 36. Pre-foreclosure numbers were in the hundreds a few months ago.
I think owners in trouble and the holding lenders are wising up and opting for the short sale as a win-win situation (or least damage situation). The lender avoids costly foreclosure proceedings and time delays and the owner avoids the stigma of foreclosure on their credit history. However, the short sale still has tax liability issue for the seller (difference between sale price and loan owed is taxed as income or capital gain). But, lenders need to streamline the short sale process. Many of the short sales could fall into foreclosure due to lender beaurocracy.
http://search.foreclosurehomesearch.com/
password this week: 1942
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 2767 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 14th, 2008 11:10 pm |
|
Banks are in trouble due to one reason.
GREED. They pushed ARM's very heavily and invested in derivitives to the extreme. Seems that Banks are able to make what ever kind of stupid investment mistake possible and the fed just bails them out. Eletism at it's best.
Surely you do not advocate a change in our ecconomic system do you?
Absolutely. 100 % positively! Fiat money is only paper, the fed makes it from nothing. John Kennedy tried to reform our monetary system.......but he became a target.
THe system is corrupt!! There is nothing backing the US dollar, everyone is fleeing from it.
http://www.economymodels.com/money.asp
Last edited on Wed May 14th, 2008 11:21 pm by gk
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 729 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 14th, 2008 10:50 pm |
|
| You would be willling to risk the bad debt for a 1.5% spread? Good luck on getting the Fed to lend you that money based on your lousy business model. Professionally run banks are going broke with the 3.5% spread. How do you figure you are so much smarter than they are? My guess is that the markets in India are offering a bigger spread. It all comes down to the best use of the resources for stockholder returns. You are not entitled to a handout just because you are an American. If you are a higher risk or your potential ROI does not meet the model then you lose. Sorry to be so blunt but that is how business operates in a free market. Surely you do not advocate a change in our ecconomic system do you?
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Wed May 14th, 2008 10:36 pm |
|
Bambi wrote:
Well, it looks like the Feds have removed their bias that inflation was our greatest economic threat.....and have switched it to growth instead, where it's been all along. They missed their mark, once again, under crisis, which is what they were created for in the first place.
Now, like they did after the events of 9-11, start aggressively reducing those rates at each of your three remaining meetings this year. Now, that will present an opportunity for the Real Estate Market to rebound and recover from this downhill ride we're on.
Boy, that will take the wind out of the sales of all those soothsayers out there that were trying to predict the outcome of this crunch we're in. You just don't know and to predict is to guess. Hang in there till the market gets better? Well, hopefully, it's on it's way. Those home prices will start rising again, as that reduction in rates, will trigger a wave of applications, and will also send a signal to the homebuilders, that with that lower rate, they can now pump more profit into their homes; supply and demand will govern that move, not the Feds. Now, that's history talking, not a crystal ball.
It's still Showtime.
CNN reported that the banks (after the Fed bail-out) have no intention of wasting those cheap dollars on US consumers. They plan to invest the bulk of that low-rate money in India and China, emerging economies.
The Fed (our tax dollars hard at work) is lending banks money at an all time low. Just how much profit do the corporations need to make? At prime-plus, the historical marker for interest rates we should be getting loans at way cheaper than 5.5%, more like 3.5%. Just another ploy to take from the middle class and give to the emerging nations.
I wish I could borrow money at 2% and loan it at 5.5% for a yield of 275%. It looks like "global elitism" is moving forward at record pace.
AnneLast edited on Wed May 14th, 2008 10:37 pm by anne.reed
|
Bambi
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 14th, 2008 01:19 am |
|
| Received my weekly "foreclosure" list for the Valley. 1,416 compared to 1587 last week. Let's hope the reduction is a sign of the times and just not a "fluke". I'll keep tracking it.
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 579 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 25th, 2008 03:21 pm |
|
Yes, the interest on a 40-year mortgage is greater, but it allows a homeowner to borrow a larger amount of money – buy a nicer home, larger home, home in a nicer area, etc – while keeping the monthly carrying costs smaller. It should be a trade-off.
Unfortunately, too many Americans do not want a trade-off, they want things how they want them… they want the low monthly payments and the nicer home, larger home, home in a nicer area…
I didn’t opt for the standard 30 because “everyone else” does, I chose that loan because it was obvious when I purchased my home (Oct ’05) that interest rates were likely to begin increasing. (Some days I’m frustrated with myself for purchasing a home at that time. I could see the warning signs, but was then willing to accept a small (10%) decline in values over the near term as I expected to remain in the house for a while. The decline in values we are actually experiencing are far worse than I anticipated. My only consolation is that I am not down in the Hunt Highway area – I expect that area may suffer longer due to the increasing transportation costs and new development to occur immediately off the US60 within Lost Dutchman Heights.)
As for risks, IRAs are not quite the same as this mortgage crisis – should we make bad fund selections and our investments see poor returns, we will suffer the consequences without a government bail-out. That is true risk. What risk is involved, if when you make a bad decision, someone is there to rescue you from the consequences of your bad choices??? What will prevent you from making additional bad choices in the future???
We must allow people to fail as a consequence of their choices.
|
Bambi
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 24th, 2008 03:23 pm |
|
Bookchin. I'd like to discuss these real estate questions with you on my site if you would come over and register.
There are or were 40 year mortgages out there. Very few chose them, because the payoff is way too much. Ten years more worth of interest equates to alot of money....so the principal is reducing less than a 30 year. Most people don't think about owning a home longer that 5 years in this day and age, so they opt for the 5 year arms or the 30 year fixed. ....psychology at work in their own minds, each at a different level of thinking and figuring things out. Most just opt for the "standard" 30 year, as that's what everyone else does, so guess I will too.
It's all about risks. Sames goes with peoples IRA money. Earn 15% with market risks, or a safe standard 5% with no market risks. They decide.
But we are paying for the other guys loss and will continue to do so, as we have done in the past.
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 579 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 24th, 2008 06:12 am |
|
pipeman wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/business/20fannie.html?ref=business
I found this to be refreshing news. Hopefully this will help and bring housing back on track.
How is it refreshing news that these two "private" companies are now allowed to invest a greater share of their assets into risky investments prone to failure and that when they fail, it will be the taxpayers bailing them out???
I'm sorry, but the government needs to get out of the way and allow the market to correct without interference. It is entirely unfair to us who make responsible choices - what am I teaching my children...
If you are responsible you will have your family of five live in the small house, but if you take risks and are irresponsible, you can buy the big house and hope the government (the responsible citizens) will help you keep your big house when reality catches up with you.
I end up "looking" like the stupid adult - I'm left with the small house while helping the other guy keep his big house.
There are solutions that would not require government intervention but be a win-win for both sides - how about longer mortgage terms???
Last edited on Thu Apr 24th, 2008 06:13 am by ajBookchin
|
Bambi
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 23rd, 2008 05:28 pm |
|
Well, just a bit of news for our rural area's climb out of a state of depressed prices.
The 3.5 acre piece, with water, just 2 lots down from me, is in escrow for $400,000. A home two lots east of me, is under construction. It will be 7800 sq. ft., with 14 children under roof. He is bringing the waterline down to his home, as he is the one that had to go down 1600 ft. to reach water, and the Dept. of Water Resources advised him not to drill a well out here. He advised everyone not to drill. Surprise Surprise....wonder if Georgie boy has anything to do with this?
Anyway, that is good news. Now all we have to do is close that escrow, record that price, and we have a "new" baseline" to start at. We have been asking $189,000. for the same size lot, only out back in units 7, and not one bite. Now $400k cash? The Gates are beginning to open again.
I'm leaving this on here, as I probably won't be posting real estate news on here anymore, since I have the http://www.oursantanfoothills.org site. I just have to duplicate what I write, and I'm getting too old for duplication efforts.
See ya Saturday.
|
pipeman
Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 20th, 2008 04:45 am |
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/business/20fannie.html?ref=business
I found this to be refreshing news. Hopefully this will help and bring housing back on track.
|
Bambi
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 19th, 2008 01:49 am |
|
I just thought I'd tell you that my "real estate phone lines" have started ringing more often...with buyers and sellers. A good sign, in spite of all the negative signs. Now most of these buyer calls are for "deals" out here, meaning foreclosures and short sales and some new homes, if they can get their per sq. ft. price down low enough to compete with the foreclosure market. The resident resale market also competes with the foreclusures and short sales, so they are still having difficulty too. Time....just hang in there.
This will be a slow upturn for everyone, until the foreclosure market is pretty well exhausted. But buyers shouldn't feel guilty making these foreclosure purchases. This is a good opportunity to acquire a huge amount of equity, which translates into dollars, in a short time. Think of it as putting money in the bank...when you choose to sell in a good market, your money has earned a lot of interest in the meantime, and your end up receiving a treasure in funds......this is America. The land of Opportunity. Own real estate.
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Mon Mar 17th, 2008 06:28 pm |
|
Wall Street employee owners shudder as Bear Stearns implodes
By Daisy Maxey
Last update: 12:44 p.m. EDT March 17, 2008
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- On Wall Street, employees are suddenly worried about their stakes in their employers' stock. The reason, or course, is the dramatic plunge in Bear Stearns Cos. (BSC: 3.90, -26.10, -87.0%) stock. Employees at the firm are now worried not only about their jobs, but they're also helplessly watching their company stock holdings plummet. Bear Stearns, which employs 14,000, is about one-third owned by its staff. JPMorgan & Chase & Co. (JPM: 39.75, +3.21, +8.8%) is paying just $2 a share for the 85-year-old investment bank, the fifth-biggest in the U.S., to rescue it from a severe cash crunch. That's a far cry from where the shares were just weeks ago. Bear's shares closed at $30 on Friday, and traded above $100 as recently as December.
According to Financial News, staff at Bear Stearns have lost more than $5.2 billion on their holdings in the company. The sale price is 98.7% below where the shares were trading as recently as April last year. The obvious parallel is with the collapse of Enron, the energy trading giant that entered bankruptcy proceedings in December 2001 with accounting problems and billions in debt. In addition to thousands of jobs, more than $2 billion in pensions were wiped out. "It's Enron all over again," said Don Delves, president of the Delves Group, a Chicago-based executive compensation consulting firm. "Enron had the same problem; everyone was locked up in their stock." Now employees all over Wall Street are wondering about the wisdom of owning large chunks of their own companies' stock. Employee stock ownership is also high at Lehman Brothers (LEH: 25.82, -13.44, -34.2%) , at about 30%, according to the company's web site. Lehman, one of the very few independent investment banking firms like Bear, has sought to reassure investors that it has sufficient liquidity. The stock was down about 15% in morning trading. And at many larger Wall Street firms, employees often have large holdings of stock through bonuses, 401(k) plans and options.
At Merrill Lynch & Co. (MER: 38.97, -4.54, -10.4%) , employees own 26% of the company's stock, according to 2006 data on the company's website. The data include options not yet vested. A financial advisor at Merrill said, "I'm nervous." Depending on production, Merrill advisors are awarded a percentage of stock that vests after five years. A little before 9 a.m. EDT Monday, the southeast regional director of wealth management at the firm sent a note to financial advisors, saying the firm's "capital position is sound," and that, as when E.F. Hutton and Drexel Burnham Lambert collapsed in the past, the swift decline of Bear could signal a turning point.
Of Bear Stearns employees, the advisor said, "We feel their pain, literally, because we're going through it. This is uncharted water for all of us. We'll see, probably, the real test of patience and nerves."
One Citigroup Inc. (C: 18.35, -1.43, -7.2%) executive, who receives deferred stock as part of his bonus, said, "I've heard people saying they have nothing but Citi in their 401k. That is the classic mistake." And a veteran Citi broker said, "Don't limit your investments to your company stock. That's standard advice to our clients," and now "the same advice we give to ourselves." Time and again, company collapses show the perils of employee ownership of huge chunks of company stock. At Lucent, the telecom giant matched employee contributions to its 401(k) plan with company stock, and employees often invested in the stock in their 401(k) plan. They suffered in the telecom crash; the company later merged, becoming Alcatel-Lucent (ALU:5.12, -0.14, -2.7%).
Of course, employee stock ownership goes much broader than Wall Street. In 2007, 11.2 million Americans held $928 billion in employee stock option plans, stock bonus plans and profit-sharing plans that primarily invest in company stock. That was up from 2006 when 10.5 million plan participants held $675 billion in similar plans, according to the National Center For Employee Ownership in Oakland, Calif. According to Hewitt Associates, a third of workers don't have company stock in their 401(k) plans, but almost 40% have at least 20%, and 16% have more than 50% balance in company stock.
Lower paid managers might receive 10% of their compensation in stock, while the highest paid executives might receive 45% or 50% of their pay in company stock, said Alan Johnson, managing director, Johnson Associates Inc., a compensation consulting firm. It can range from 15% to 80% or even 90%. The stock vests over time, typically three to four years.
"There's tremendous pride in ownership," said Johnson. While financial advisors might recommend against owning so much company stock, "Fear can be a great motivator," he said. "If you're worried about returns then you'll be extra careful."
Pearl Meyer, a senior managing director at executive compensation consulting firm Steven Hall & Partners in New York, said the culture at Bear Stearns was more like "a Goldman Sachs culture" than that of a publicly owned firm. "While they were public, they had a partnership culture," and the culture encouraged heavy employee ownership in the stock, he said.
At Bear Stearns, employees were barred from trading shares they hold in the company recently because of long-standing "lockups" weeks prior to the company's earnings announcements. (Jilian Mincer and Kristen McNamara contributed to this story.)
-Contact: 201-938-5400
|
Bambi
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 10th, 2008 07:58 pm |
|
Here's your market. Here's your reason people can't sell their homes....or buyers are ignoring their homes.
Char just went to show a home that requires a short sale. There are 7 other offers in front of her. The lenders are eating this up. Kind of a reverse of 2005.
Now try to go and borrow for a regular home sale......tough requirements....making it more difficult than ever. who wants to buy a regular home at the "normal" market price when they can "steal" one from the foreclosures and short sales market, which is much lower and more enticing?
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Sat Mar 8th, 2008 05:11 pm |
|
Many would disagree:
http://hf-implode.com/viewnews/2008-03-07_Anatomyofahedgefundcollapse.html
LAST UPDATED: MARCH 7, 2008: 7:50 AM
Anatomy of a hedge fund collapse
When big banks have multibillion-dollar holes on their balance sheets, they make harsh margin calls even to their healthier clients. Here's how one fund got crunched by the credit crisis.
By Roddy Boyd, writer
NEW YORK (Fortune) -- In this market, even when a hedge fund is doing well, the wolf can be right outside the front door.
Exhibit A: The recent collapse of the $150 million Tequesta Mortgage fund. Like much larger and higher-profile rivals that have imploded in recent weeks, Tequesta collapsed when it couldn't meet demands for more collateral from its prime broker - in Tequesta's case, Citigroup (C, Fortune 500).
Unlike other hedge funds that cratered from bad housing-related bets, Tequesta steered clear of the mortgage- and asset-backed credit markets now getting walloped by the real estate bust. In fact, Tequesta's investment strategy of avoiding credit risk was paying off, according to bond salesmen and rival fund managers who bought the Tequesta positions seized by Citigroup.
What's more, unlike many managers of now-defunct hedge funds, Tequesta general partner Ivan Ross specialized in mortgage-related investing and had successfully navigated ugly mortgage-market crises in 1994 and in 1998.
The cause of the Tequesta fund's death: The balance sheet problems of the commercial and investment banks that dominate Wall Street's bond trading. Its untimely demise offers a case study in how the credit squeeze is forcing big players like Citigroup to pull lines of credit from otherwise healthy investors.
Granted, Tequesta wasn't a knockout in the hedge fund world, where stratospheric returns were the norm in recent years. The fund's returns were steady, if unspectacular, according to Hedgefund.net: 8.82% in 2003, 7.9% in 2004, 2.92% in 2005 and 8.74% in 2006.
The bonds seemed safe
The Tequesta fund traded in bonds carved from so-called prime jumbo mortgage loans. These are loans made to higher net-worth borrowers, generally in the amounts of $500,000 or more, who tend to have better credit. Tequesta's portfolio of triple-A loans continued to have low levels of default and delinquency as of earlier this year, according to a Fortune review of fund marketing materials and letters to investors.
In short, the prime jumbo mortgage bond market proved to be the exact opposite of the collateralized debt obligation (CDO) market, where billions of dollars worth of bonds were found to have been backed by problematic collateral. But when the market for triple-A rated bonds evaporated in recent months, so did the market for Tequesta's holdings of otherwise stable jumbo mortgage investments.
Tequesta was known for avoiding the use of credit to increase the size and risk of its investments; indeed, it had to work hard to convince investors that its aversion to credit risk - Ross had written to investors as early as 2005 that he saw major problems with the credit cycle - would not preclude handsome returns. The fund was also known to be scrupulous in its hedging practices, in order to guard against declines in the prices of its bonds.
Investors clamored for a more aggressive approach. "They were facing investor questions in early 2007 because [Tequesta's] hedges left too much carry on the table," said a bond salesman who covered the fund. By "carry," the salesman is referring to the difference between what a hedge fund receives in bond interest and what it pays to its prime broker to finance the position.
Last year, Ross yielded and opened another fund that used slightly more leverage - but only, he told Fortune, to two times capital, which is sharply below the industry average. The move pleased some of the fund's investors who quickly shifted their investments to the new portfolio.
Markets dry up
His timing couldn't have been worse. In July and August of last year, and then again in October and November, the secondary market for jumbo mortgage bonds came to a standstill. At the same time, Tequesta's primary brokers - including Bear Stearns (BSC, Fortune 500), Citigroup, Credit Suisse (CS) and UBS (UBS) - were grappling with balance sheets loaded with billions of dollars worth of subprime mortgages, CDOs and other fixed-income derivatives and loans.
This, in turn, created problems for smaller, less-liquid markets. Jumbo mortgage bonds, for instance, saw valuations drop as dealers and rival mortgage hedge funds refused to indicate at what price they would be willing to buy this paper. Lacking bidders, Tequesta's bonds fell in value.
So began a vicious cycle.
Tequesta's portfolio managers watched on the sidelines as banks dumped billions of dollars worth of mortgage bonds to free up capital. Even bonds backed by loans to the wealthiest Americans traded lower.
This raised alarms among Tequesta's lenders. Executives at investment-bank prime brokerage operations saw the sharp drop in the value of Tequesta's holdings and demanded additional collateral. In turn, they forced the fund to make additional sales to meet the margin calls.
Last year, after months of grappling with - and meeting - margin calls, the Tequesta fund posted a 19.63% decline. Though alarming, Ross and his colleagues soldiered on, reckoning that the historically low valuations of their portfolio - "money good" triple-A securities that were now offering unprecedented yields well into the double-digits - would be irresistible to investors.
They were wrong. In February, according to a Tequesta executive, trading in the jumbo mortgage markets virtually stopped. Prompted by massive trades in other mortgage bond markets that forced bond prices to historical lows, the margin calls from its trading counter-parties and its prime-broker Citigroup, all of whom were coping with their own balance sheet problems - started around the third week of the month.
Making matters worse: Unlike other lenders making margin calls, Citigroup was willing to liquidate inventory below loan values - the value it had assigned the bond when they initially provided the fund its margin - and recognize losses just to get the bonds off its books. A Citigroup spokeswoman declined comment.
In one case, Citigroup seized collateral from Tequesta and put it up for sale in a bid-list auction. According to a trader at another firm, however, Citigroup's mortgage trading desk offered to sell Tequesta's bonds to regional brokerage firms at prices even lower than listed prices. In another instance, Tequesta's portfolio managers were told by Citigroup rivals that its seized bonds had been offered to other hedge funds for more than $25 below where they had been trading in the previous days.
Under that kind of pressure, Tequesta decided by early March that they'd have to shut the mortgage fund down. Tequesta, according to a firm executive, still has several portfolios open. Ross declined comment to Fortune.com on his future plans. But as long as the credit markets remain in their current miserable state, there are going to be more stories like Tequesta's.
FIRST PUBLISHED: MARCH 7, 2008: 4:21 AM EST
|
Bambi
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 8th, 2008 12:38 am |
|
Different perspectives........This one says that "now" is the perfect entry point.
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1713483,00.html#
|
Bambi
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 6th, 2008 05:54 pm |
|
Todays Updates from a Lender.....
Rates have taken a sharp increase during the past week. Most everything is up a 1/2%.
For the past week, the banks have had a huge liquidity problem and are selling off their mortgage bonds in order to bring in badly needed cash. In doing so the supply of mortgage bonds has greatly increased v.s. the demand for them. When supply of anything is much greater than the demand, buyers expect a good deal.
Thus the mortgage bond buyers are getting higher yields and our interest rates are therefore higher too. Hopefully the Mortgage Bond oversupply situation won't last too long.
Another thing you should know about is the situation with stated loans. Basically the "stated loan" is starting to go away. I still have some lenders that will do a "stated" loan, but don't expect that to last too long.
Buyers: Get your paperwork in order and be ready for full doc loans in the very near future.
a 30 year fixed rate loan is now 6.3%. A 5 yr. fixed arm is 5.7%.
People are going to have to get creative to move their properties....I have a seller who will sell his property on a 75/15/10. That means a 75% loan, based on the seller carrying 15%, leaving the buyer to come in with only 10%. That's creative.
One more thing...homeowner equity is the lowest it's been since 1945.
Last edited on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 06:12 pm by
|
Bambi
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 6th, 2008 02:51 pm |
|
Many of them knew....the title officer quite often explains those risks at closing. They decided to take those risk, in hopes of the market continuing on it's same path. Or if they didn't understand the risks, they knew they couldn't afford an attorney, so they pursued as if they knew.
It was a risk taking market, felt by all, which kept escalating till it was spinning out of control with the constant rise in pricing....then it quit spinning at a dead stop. One day the phones were ringing....the next day no phones ringing.
Just hang in there....when the people's confidence begins to rise, so shall the economy.
|
pipeman
Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 6th, 2008 04:12 am |
|
| I heard on KTAR today that we now have more home foreclosures than we have homes sold. That in itself, is really sad. People can lay blame on preditory lenders, but I say lay the blame where it belongs....... on the people who purchased something they couldn;t afford. It is always suggested to have a lawyer go over all the paperwork before signing anything, these people failed to do it, now they are suffering due to their lack of protecting themselves. It still is a sad situation.
|
Bambi
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 5th, 2008 11:12 pm |
|
Here's some good information from ARMLS...MLS. Just keep referring to it for your updates and explore the site as a consumer. Good credible information to track what's happening to us. The graph is great. Just keep your eye on the ball, and when it begins to rise, you know we must have hit bottom...finally.
These are the solds.
http://www.armls.com/pdfs/SoldChartJan08.pdf
Here's the chart for the listings.
http://www.armls.com/pdfs/ListChartJan08.pdf
And here's the ARMLS Economic and Market Watch Report. It covers Maricopa and Pinal Counties, including forecasts.
If you read that Report and look at those charts, you will probably know and understand more than most realtors and consumers do. It's a wealth of information based on factual data collected by the Association.
http://www.armls.com/pdfs/4q07NarReport.pdf
Read and gather insight, which translates into understanding.
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 729 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 5th, 2008 10:50 pm |
|
Bravo wrote: The price of gas is having an effect on home sales out here. I just read an article on how people are not willing to drive anymore to the outlying areas even if it means more house for the money. This was in the Real Estate section of the AZ republic. These families can now find deals on homes in Chandler and Gilbert that are very appealing. They stated that they are willing to settle for a smaller home and not have to put up with the traffic and the high price of gasoling that goes with it.
Like I stated before ... THAT IS A STRETCH to justify the posting in this topic.
|
Bravo
Member
|
Posted: Wed Mar 5th, 2008 10:46 pm |
|
| The price of gas is having an effect on home sales out here. I just read an article on how people are not willing to drive anymore to the outlying areas even if it means more house for the money. This was in the Real Estate section of the AZ republic. These families can now find deals on homes in Chandler and Gilbert that are very appealing. They stated that they are willing to settle for a smaller home and not have to put up with the traffic and the high price of gasoling that goes with it.
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 2767 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 5th, 2008 08:13 pm |
|
Have no beef with Bambi at all.
sorry webmaster jj. with your permission I will leave this thread now....please?
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 729 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 5th, 2008 07:54 pm |
|
| That is a huge stretch .... I for one like this topic as it gives insightful anf professional information. You and I are not experts in this field and stand to learn from it. Please keep things on topic and not hijacked. I am not sure what your beef and personal vendetta is against Bambi. Listen to her ... You may actually learn something
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 2767 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 5th, 2008 07:51 pm |
|
| just for you jj.................the price of gas, the price of food, the loan defaults and the falling of the dollar ALL affect the real estate and mortgage sector
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 729 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 5th, 2008 07:30 pm |
|
gk wrote: GORDA, Calif.- If you're going to be heading down the Big Sur Coastline anytime soon, you'll probably going to want to have a full tank before you leave with the price of crude oil skyrocketing. With gasoline following the same direction, the Americo gas station in Gorda, just south of Big Sur is selling premium unleaded gas for $5.39 a gallon. If you can do without premium regular's a relative bargain at $5.19.
Prices in many Bay Area cities remain above the statewide average with the price for a gallon of gas in Oakland at $3.51; San Francisco, $3.64; Salinas, $3.56; San Jose, $3.52; and Santa Cruz, $3.51. The average price for a gallon of gas in Santa Rosa sits just under the statewide average at $3.49 and in Vallejo a gallon is averaging $3.47, according to AAA.
What does this have to do with "Real Estate and Mortgage Update"?
|
Bambi
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 5th, 2008 07:27 pm |
|
| Where's that doggone car from India? I want one of those.
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 2767 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 5th, 2008 07:17 pm |
|
GORDA, Calif.- If you're going to be heading down the Big Sur Coastline anytime soon, you'll probably going to want to have a full tank before you leave with the price of crude oil skyrocketing. With gasoline following the same direction, the Americo gas station in Gorda, just south of Big Sur is selling premium unleaded gas for $5.39 a gallon. If you can do without premium regular's a relative bargain at $5.19.
Prices in many Bay Area cities remain above the statewide average with the price for a gallon of gas in Oakland at $3.51; San Francisco, $3.64; Salinas, $3.56; San Jose, $3.52; and Santa Cruz, $3.51. The average price for a gallon of gas in Santa Rosa sits just under the statewide average at $3.49 and in Vallejo a gallon is averaging $3.47, according to AAA.
|
pipeman
Member
|
Posted: Wed Mar 5th, 2008 07:04 pm |
|
| well at least two partment buildings sold in the West Valley for a lot of money. One sold for 43 mil (a company from Oregon or Washington) and the other for 10 mil, or right there abouts.
|
Bambi
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 5th, 2008 06:06 pm |
|
I can't write this again so I'll post the site from the QC forum.
http://www.newszapforums.com/view_topic.php?id=54757&forum_id=27&jump_to=267836
I will say that we finally had a closing in the SanTans on land inFeb. we meaning another realtor. A 5 acre site without water, for $300k. We were selling them in 05 for close to $600k.
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 2767 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 4th, 2008 06:55 pm |
|
How bad is the economic outlook anyway?
Consider the following:
1.The Dow dropped 315 points Friday and it was the fourth straight month in decline.
2. The dollar vs. the Euro
3. Nearly 200,000 newly constructed single-family homes are sitting empty.
4. Consumer prices surged 4.1 percent last year, the most in 17 years.
5. Wholesale costs accelerated to 7.4 percent in January, the biggest jump since 1981.
6. Durable-goods orders for January plunged 5.3 percent and consumer sentiment fell to the lowest level since February 1992.
7. claims for unemployment insurance climbed 19,000 last week
8. Buy groceries lately? Everything is higher and that is only the beginning
With all of the clear evidence that the economy is in a severe decline the lame stream media still fails to actually tell us how bad it really is. No wonder.......this is what the genius at the Fed (Wacky Bernanke) has to say about it ......"the US economy will return to a strong growth path with price stability."
and of course boy george hasn't a clue............President Bush said last Thursday, "I don't think we're headed to a recession,"
But other countries have no problem giving the facts
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/03/03/ccview103.xml
Last edited on Tue Mar 4th, 2008 07:03 pm by gk
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Tue Mar 4th, 2008 02:02 pm |
|
starleen wrote:
But l know several well qualified buyers who can't get a loan to save their lives.
Why can't they get a loan if they are qualified - because the property doesn't appraise for the value of the loan? Still lots of sellers in denial.
They haven't gotten a loan because many banks have effectively frozen their lending. Loan to Value ratio was under 70%, plenty of equity.
Regards,
Anne
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 2767 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 4th, 2008 05:30 am |
|
some of those banks are starting to feel the beginnings of the derivitives market failing.
When that picks up speed it will destroy many. Derivitives are the absolutely dumbest investment that they could make.......but make it they did.......and it's really gona be ugly!
Why derivitives were allowed is beyond comprehension..........stupid.....stupid......stupid!!!!!!
|
Current time is 09:12 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   |
|
|
|