Menu

Home › Forums › Housing › Increasing numbers of Americans are simply walking away from their houses

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 137 total)
1 2 3 … 8 9 10
  • Author
    Posts
  • April 17, 2008 at 3:27 PM #12464
    cr
    Participant

    Full Reuters article here. Some of the interesting points:

    …one in five borrowers owing more on their loan than the house will fetch

    Mark Zandi of Moody’s Economy.com estimates that 10.6 million homeowners will have zero or negative equity by the end of June, or 21% of first mortgage holders.

    The impact of a new wave of defaults will…mean a wave of new properties hitting the real estate market, driving prices lower still, as banks seize and seek to sell the houses homeowners have fled.

    Zandi has estimated that every foreclosure on a neighbourhood block reduces the value of all homes on that block by almost 1.5 percent.

    Data from real estate firm RealtyTrac not only shows a rapid rise in overall foreclosures, but also suggests a rising number of walk aways.

    Home foreclosure filings surged 57 percent in the 12 months to March and bank repossessions soared 129 percent from a year ago, according to RealtyTrac.
    _________________________________________________

    If it takes up to 6 months to go from default to REO on the market, arguably slower these days due to volume, many of these homes won’t hit the market until 2009. Doesn’t bode well for those calling that the bottom when we have enough inventory today to get us there.

    April 17, 2008 at 4:41 PM #189208
    Bugs
    Participant

    In 2001 nobody could have guessed the heights to which the market would eventually climb. I don’t think it’s an exagerration to say that in 2005 there were but few who could guess the depths to which this market could fall.

    April 17, 2008 at 4:41 PM #189229
    Bugs
    Participant

    In 2001 nobody could have guessed the heights to which the market would eventually climb. I don’t think it’s an exagerration to say that in 2005 there were but few who could guess the depths to which this market could fall.

    April 17, 2008 at 4:41 PM #189260
    Bugs
    Participant

    In 2001 nobody could have guessed the heights to which the market would eventually climb. I don’t think it’s an exagerration to say that in 2005 there were but few who could guess the depths to which this market could fall.

    April 17, 2008 at 4:41 PM #189271
    Bugs
    Participant

    In 2001 nobody could have guessed the heights to which the market would eventually climb. I don’t think it’s an exagerration to say that in 2005 there were but few who could guess the depths to which this market could fall.

    April 17, 2008 at 4:41 PM #189277
    Bugs
    Participant

    In 2001 nobody could have guessed the heights to which the market would eventually climb. I don’t think it’s an exagerration to say that in 2005 there were but few who could guess the depths to which this market could fall.

    April 17, 2008 at 8:50 PM #189321
    equalizer
    Participant

    Zandi has been on fire for a while now. It’s too bad that Moody’s wasn’t warned about this a few years ago so they could have marked all MBS to double junk. Oh wait, Zandi’s employer is owned by Moody’s, except he works for geek dept, while the the rating agency is run by their fraud dept. Why does Zandi still have a job, wouldn’t be surprised if he is arrested for fraud.

    The 1.5% drop is very conservative, maybe its per month.

    April 17, 2008 at 8:50 PM #189339
    equalizer
    Participant

    Zandi has been on fire for a while now. It’s too bad that Moody’s wasn’t warned about this a few years ago so they could have marked all MBS to double junk. Oh wait, Zandi’s employer is owned by Moody’s, except he works for geek dept, while the the rating agency is run by their fraud dept. Why does Zandi still have a job, wouldn’t be surprised if he is arrested for fraud.

    The 1.5% drop is very conservative, maybe its per month.

    April 17, 2008 at 8:50 PM #189368
    equalizer
    Participant

    Zandi has been on fire for a while now. It’s too bad that Moody’s wasn’t warned about this a few years ago so they could have marked all MBS to double junk. Oh wait, Zandi’s employer is owned by Moody’s, except he works for geek dept, while the the rating agency is run by their fraud dept. Why does Zandi still have a job, wouldn’t be surprised if he is arrested for fraud.

    The 1.5% drop is very conservative, maybe its per month.

    April 17, 2008 at 8:50 PM #189379
    equalizer
    Participant

    Zandi has been on fire for a while now. It’s too bad that Moody’s wasn’t warned about this a few years ago so they could have marked all MBS to double junk. Oh wait, Zandi’s employer is owned by Moody’s, except he works for geek dept, while the the rating agency is run by their fraud dept. Why does Zandi still have a job, wouldn’t be surprised if he is arrested for fraud.

    The 1.5% drop is very conservative, maybe its per month.

    April 17, 2008 at 8:50 PM #189387
    equalizer
    Participant

    Zandi has been on fire for a while now. It’s too bad that Moody’s wasn’t warned about this a few years ago so they could have marked all MBS to double junk. Oh wait, Zandi’s employer is owned by Moody’s, except he works for geek dept, while the the rating agency is run by their fraud dept. Why does Zandi still have a job, wouldn’t be surprised if he is arrested for fraud.

    The 1.5% drop is very conservative, maybe its per month.

    April 17, 2008 at 11:16 PM #189385
    cr
    Participant

    I think he means a flat 1.5% the moment a home in the area goes into foreclosure.

    Here’s a question though: would you prefer people walk on their mortgages or the government bail them out?

    Both have negative moral implications. People walking out will cause banks to make up the loss on new loans, while a bailout will tend to keep prices inflated.

    Given that I have to say I’d rather see people walk. As banks raise rates to cover their losses, it should drive down demand even more.

    April 17, 2008 at 11:16 PM #189407
    cr
    Participant

    I think he means a flat 1.5% the moment a home in the area goes into foreclosure.

    Here’s a question though: would you prefer people walk on their mortgages or the government bail them out?

    Both have negative moral implications. People walking out will cause banks to make up the loss on new loans, while a bailout will tend to keep prices inflated.

    Given that I have to say I’d rather see people walk. As banks raise rates to cover their losses, it should drive down demand even more.

    April 17, 2008 at 11:16 PM #189434
    cr
    Participant

    I think he means a flat 1.5% the moment a home in the area goes into foreclosure.

    Here’s a question though: would you prefer people walk on their mortgages or the government bail them out?

    Both have negative moral implications. People walking out will cause banks to make up the loss on new loans, while a bailout will tend to keep prices inflated.

    Given that I have to say I’d rather see people walk. As banks raise rates to cover their losses, it should drive down demand even more.

    April 17, 2008 at 11:16 PM #189447
    cr
    Participant

    I think he means a flat 1.5% the moment a home in the area goes into foreclosure.

    Here’s a question though: would you prefer people walk on their mortgages or the government bail them out?

    Both have negative moral implications. People walking out will cause banks to make up the loss on new loans, while a bailout will tend to keep prices inflated.

    Given that I have to say I’d rather see people walk. As banks raise rates to cover their losses, it should drive down demand even more.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 137 total)
1 2 3 … 8 9 10
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.