People, people, people. It seems that no one is disagreeing with me but at the same time some want to appear as if they agree with SDRealtor. Here is the statement I am debating:
1. The pre-foreclosure data looks much worse than it actually is. That’s because this data includes defaults on second mortgages. Many people intentionally defaulted on the 2nd mortgages only, knowing that the junior lien holders don’t have the legal right to kick them out. At the same time, these same people negotiate with the primary mortgage lender to lower their mortgage payments. So, a significant percentage of the properties that are in default will not end up as REOs.
I can’t find one post from anybody agreeing “pre-foreclosure data looks much worse than it actually is” because of 2nds. Notice the word MUCH.
From what I can see there is no one else that has posted they believe there is an appreciable number of 2nds who have filed NODs, let alone ”many” that have done so, AND, AND that people are living in these 2nd mortgage holder filing NOD homes while paying a modified first, SO MANY to make this an accurate statement “So, a significant percentage of the properties that are in default will not end up as REOs.”
I am saying this is a total fabrication of a statement and still can’t find one article that backs up this theory. This a bulls versus bears thread, is this theory on seconds going to keep a significant percentage of homes from becoming a drag on the market thru a distressed sales/REO/short sales or not?
Stay focused people. We are looking for MANY 2nds filing NODs. AND we are looking for the owners STAYING in those homes PAYING a modified First mortgage. And documentation that a significant percentage of the properties that are in default will not end up as REOs/shorts ala a drag on RE prices.
Some keep focusing on the fact that I asked for just one example as if that means I claim there is not one case of this happening. Please note that have always maintained that it’s not happening in “appreciable numbers”. I ask for just one instance, but am not saying that a few people will not try this. No back paddling, go back and read my actual words.
Why do I need to explain these things? The claim is a significant percentage and I get stuck with explaining that I’m not debating that one or two or even a hundred people may try this highly illogical step??? WTF?
Maybe you can get it if I say it like this:
Many people are not doing this to the point that the number is so small you can’t find even one case of it. Get it? Not saying there is not one, just that it’s so rare you can’t document one. Tricky huh? But I am not saying that some people won’t try this. People will do every crazy thing imaginable in small numbers. Some may take off work to try and get a photo of Big Foot to sell and pay off the late mortgage. Some may try the Vegas tables to get out of the hole. I’m just saying it’s a really small number and so small in fact no one else has documented or wrote of its occurrence
The statement uses the words MANY of and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. Not one or two or a hundred, out of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. SO I am not debating what the statement does NOT SAY (one or two) I am debating what it does say……. MANY and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE. What a concept.
And please recognize that a short sale wherein they lose the house is not an example of what we are looking for. A short sale is just that, SHORT, as in short of the original loan as in just another form of distressed, market dragging inventory. Whether the house sells at drastic discount at short sale before a complete foreclosure or it sells at a drastic discount as an REO matters not. For a bear argument, same, same, bad, bad.
