Home › Forums › Closed Forums › Buying and Selling RE › HOUSING: Feds suspend anti-flipping rule
- This topic has 300 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 11 months ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 17, 2010 at 3:37 PM #503850January 17, 2010 at 5:18 PM #502969
pemeliza
Participant“For example, note the house on Bolero in 92009 that recently went pending (the modern, white one with 1/2 acre and view). The flipper bought it for ~$645K, IIRC, and without doing any renovations (I prefer they NOT do renovations, for the same reasons stated by other posters in this thread), put it on the market in the high $900K range and it’s pending. Now, if the bank took it back instead, they could have listed it for $750K. The bank/taxpayers would have saved $100K, and the buyer could have saved $200K-$250K.”
If it is pending now for the high $900k range then how on earth would a buyer have bought it for $750k as a REO?
REO’s sell for more then flipper properties because everyone wants to “steal” one from the bank. BTW, the house on Bolero has a vacant lot sitting to the west of it. Still, if someone bought it at $645k than that was a great price.
January 17, 2010 at 5:18 PM #503116Participant“For example, note the house on Bolero in 92009 that recently went pending (the modern, white one with 1/2 acre and view). The flipper bought it for ~$645K, IIRC, and without doing any renovations (I prefer they NOT do renovations, for the same reasons stated by other posters in this thread), put it on the market in the high $900K range and it’s pending. Now, if the bank took it back instead, they could have listed it for $750K. The bank/taxpayers would have saved $100K, and the buyer could have saved $200K-$250K.”
If it is pending now for the high $900k range then how on earth would a buyer have bought it for $750k as a REO?
REO’s sell for more then flipper properties because everyone wants to “steal” one from the bank. BTW, the house on Bolero has a vacant lot sitting to the west of it. Still, if someone bought it at $645k than that was a great price.
January 17, 2010 at 5:18 PM #503517Participant“For example, note the house on Bolero in 92009 that recently went pending (the modern, white one with 1/2 acre and view). The flipper bought it for ~$645K, IIRC, and without doing any renovations (I prefer they NOT do renovations, for the same reasons stated by other posters in this thread), put it on the market in the high $900K range and it’s pending. Now, if the bank took it back instead, they could have listed it for $750K. The bank/taxpayers would have saved $100K, and the buyer could have saved $200K-$250K.”
If it is pending now for the high $900k range then how on earth would a buyer have bought it for $750k as a REO?
REO’s sell for more then flipper properties because everyone wants to “steal” one from the bank. BTW, the house on Bolero has a vacant lot sitting to the west of it. Still, if someone bought it at $645k than that was a great price.
January 17, 2010 at 5:18 PM #503609Participant“For example, note the house on Bolero in 92009 that recently went pending (the modern, white one with 1/2 acre and view). The flipper bought it for ~$645K, IIRC, and without doing any renovations (I prefer they NOT do renovations, for the same reasons stated by other posters in this thread), put it on the market in the high $900K range and it’s pending. Now, if the bank took it back instead, they could have listed it for $750K. The bank/taxpayers would have saved $100K, and the buyer could have saved $200K-$250K.”
If it is pending now for the high $900k range then how on earth would a buyer have bought it for $750k as a REO?
REO’s sell for more then flipper properties because everyone wants to “steal” one from the bank. BTW, the house on Bolero has a vacant lot sitting to the west of it. Still, if someone bought it at $645k than that was a great price.
January 17, 2010 at 5:18 PM #503860Participant“For example, note the house on Bolero in 92009 that recently went pending (the modern, white one with 1/2 acre and view). The flipper bought it for ~$645K, IIRC, and without doing any renovations (I prefer they NOT do renovations, for the same reasons stated by other posters in this thread), put it on the market in the high $900K range and it’s pending. Now, if the bank took it back instead, they could have listed it for $750K. The bank/taxpayers would have saved $100K, and the buyer could have saved $200K-$250K.”
If it is pending now for the high $900k range then how on earth would a buyer have bought it for $750k as a REO?
REO’s sell for more then flipper properties because everyone wants to “steal” one from the bank. BTW, the house on Bolero has a vacant lot sitting to the west of it. Still, if someone bought it at $645k than that was a great price.
January 17, 2010 at 5:22 PM #502974SD Realtor
ParticipantCAR I think you are making immense speculation that plays to the average poster but I don’t believe is close to accurate. Show me ANY sort of proof at all of the 40% number. Any at all. Look through tax rolls all you want, post internet announcements of huge PPIP purchases here in San Diego, I would be more then happy to read about them. That is staggering. So places like Encinitas, 4S, PQ, Carlsbad, Scripps, Tierra Santa, PB, OB, UC… some entities somewhere are scooping up these large quantities of homes (that we dont know about) according to your premise… Sorry no way do I agree. Not in the least.
Second off, how can you even question what a lender will price an REO at? How can you figure a home that fetched 900k will magically even list at 750k, and if it is listed at 750k wouldnt it be a more accurate presumption that it will be bid up if it went pending at 900k? You are making this absolute leap of faith that any REO is priced well below market and it will not ever get bid up. Take a look at the Beechtree listing in Encinitas. It was priced incorrectly by the lender and got swarmed. In fact, flippers most likely have LESS liquidity benefits over institutional lenders and will be MORE likely to cut prices FASTER if a home doesn’t sell.
Third, taking risks doesn’t entitle anyone to any reward big or small. That was never said or implied. The essence of your argument is that EVERYONE should be entitled to EVERY home regardless of individual accrual of resources. That is an awesomely scary statement. The fact is that ANYONE can go to a trustee sale. If you don’t have the cash then you cannot. Why is that not fair? It doesn’t matter if it is a flip or not a flip. People who can buy for cash will have access to additional opportunities. It is a bit scary that you opine that individuals who have worked hard to accrue money should not be allowed to take advantage of that work. What if they were to buy for primary occupancy? Change the system, but do not penalize them. Or should they not even be allowed to buy for cash on the resale market either? Wouldn’t the cash offers they put out drive the market up because someone who finances would have to overbid to get the financed offer accepted?
Again, you are blaming individuals who are trying to make money rather then a system that is inept. A fair system would simply 100% NOT ALLOW people to buy homes who couldn’t afford them. You want equitable solutions then make everyone come in with 30% cash. Yet wouldn’t that eliminate alot of people from being able to buy a home? Stop FHA and low down loans. Prevent the problem by forcing large equity stakes. I think that is best but many would call that highly unfair, perhaps even racist since that could effectively kill the chances of many minorities to buy a home.
January 17, 2010 at 5:22 PM #503121ParticipantCAR I think you are making immense speculation that plays to the average poster but I don’t believe is close to accurate. Show me ANY sort of proof at all of the 40% number. Any at all. Look through tax rolls all you want, post internet announcements of huge PPIP purchases here in San Diego, I would be more then happy to read about them. That is staggering. So places like Encinitas, 4S, PQ, Carlsbad, Scripps, Tierra Santa, PB, OB, UC… some entities somewhere are scooping up these large quantities of homes (that we dont know about) according to your premise… Sorry no way do I agree. Not in the least.
Second off, how can you even question what a lender will price an REO at? How can you figure a home that fetched 900k will magically even list at 750k, and if it is listed at 750k wouldnt it be a more accurate presumption that it will be bid up if it went pending at 900k? You are making this absolute leap of faith that any REO is priced well below market and it will not ever get bid up. Take a look at the Beechtree listing in Encinitas. It was priced incorrectly by the lender and got swarmed. In fact, flippers most likely have LESS liquidity benefits over institutional lenders and will be MORE likely to cut prices FASTER if a home doesn’t sell.
Third, taking risks doesn’t entitle anyone to any reward big or small. That was never said or implied. The essence of your argument is that EVERYONE should be entitled to EVERY home regardless of individual accrual of resources. That is an awesomely scary statement. The fact is that ANYONE can go to a trustee sale. If you don’t have the cash then you cannot. Why is that not fair? It doesn’t matter if it is a flip or not a flip. People who can buy for cash will have access to additional opportunities. It is a bit scary that you opine that individuals who have worked hard to accrue money should not be allowed to take advantage of that work. What if they were to buy for primary occupancy? Change the system, but do not penalize them. Or should they not even be allowed to buy for cash on the resale market either? Wouldn’t the cash offers they put out drive the market up because someone who finances would have to overbid to get the financed offer accepted?
Again, you are blaming individuals who are trying to make money rather then a system that is inept. A fair system would simply 100% NOT ALLOW people to buy homes who couldn’t afford them. You want equitable solutions then make everyone come in with 30% cash. Yet wouldn’t that eliminate alot of people from being able to buy a home? Stop FHA and low down loans. Prevent the problem by forcing large equity stakes. I think that is best but many would call that highly unfair, perhaps even racist since that could effectively kill the chances of many minorities to buy a home.
January 17, 2010 at 5:22 PM #503522ParticipantCAR I think you are making immense speculation that plays to the average poster but I don’t believe is close to accurate. Show me ANY sort of proof at all of the 40% number. Any at all. Look through tax rolls all you want, post internet announcements of huge PPIP purchases here in San Diego, I would be more then happy to read about them. That is staggering. So places like Encinitas, 4S, PQ, Carlsbad, Scripps, Tierra Santa, PB, OB, UC… some entities somewhere are scooping up these large quantities of homes (that we dont know about) according to your premise… Sorry no way do I agree. Not in the least.
Second off, how can you even question what a lender will price an REO at? How can you figure a home that fetched 900k will magically even list at 750k, and if it is listed at 750k wouldnt it be a more accurate presumption that it will be bid up if it went pending at 900k? You are making this absolute leap of faith that any REO is priced well below market and it will not ever get bid up. Take a look at the Beechtree listing in Encinitas. It was priced incorrectly by the lender and got swarmed. In fact, flippers most likely have LESS liquidity benefits over institutional lenders and will be MORE likely to cut prices FASTER if a home doesn’t sell.
Third, taking risks doesn’t entitle anyone to any reward big or small. That was never said or implied. The essence of your argument is that EVERYONE should be entitled to EVERY home regardless of individual accrual of resources. That is an awesomely scary statement. The fact is that ANYONE can go to a trustee sale. If you don’t have the cash then you cannot. Why is that not fair? It doesn’t matter if it is a flip or not a flip. People who can buy for cash will have access to additional opportunities. It is a bit scary that you opine that individuals who have worked hard to accrue money should not be allowed to take advantage of that work. What if they were to buy for primary occupancy? Change the system, but do not penalize them. Or should they not even be allowed to buy for cash on the resale market either? Wouldn’t the cash offers they put out drive the market up because someone who finances would have to overbid to get the financed offer accepted?
Again, you are blaming individuals who are trying to make money rather then a system that is inept. A fair system would simply 100% NOT ALLOW people to buy homes who couldn’t afford them. You want equitable solutions then make everyone come in with 30% cash. Yet wouldn’t that eliminate alot of people from being able to buy a home? Stop FHA and low down loans. Prevent the problem by forcing large equity stakes. I think that is best but many would call that highly unfair, perhaps even racist since that could effectively kill the chances of many minorities to buy a home.
January 17, 2010 at 5:22 PM #503614ParticipantCAR I think you are making immense speculation that plays to the average poster but I don’t believe is close to accurate. Show me ANY sort of proof at all of the 40% number. Any at all. Look through tax rolls all you want, post internet announcements of huge PPIP purchases here in San Diego, I would be more then happy to read about them. That is staggering. So places like Encinitas, 4S, PQ, Carlsbad, Scripps, Tierra Santa, PB, OB, UC… some entities somewhere are scooping up these large quantities of homes (that we dont know about) according to your premise… Sorry no way do I agree. Not in the least.
Second off, how can you even question what a lender will price an REO at? How can you figure a home that fetched 900k will magically even list at 750k, and if it is listed at 750k wouldnt it be a more accurate presumption that it will be bid up if it went pending at 900k? You are making this absolute leap of faith that any REO is priced well below market and it will not ever get bid up. Take a look at the Beechtree listing in Encinitas. It was priced incorrectly by the lender and got swarmed. In fact, flippers most likely have LESS liquidity benefits over institutional lenders and will be MORE likely to cut prices FASTER if a home doesn’t sell.
Third, taking risks doesn’t entitle anyone to any reward big or small. That was never said or implied. The essence of your argument is that EVERYONE should be entitled to EVERY home regardless of individual accrual of resources. That is an awesomely scary statement. The fact is that ANYONE can go to a trustee sale. If you don’t have the cash then you cannot. Why is that not fair? It doesn’t matter if it is a flip or not a flip. People who can buy for cash will have access to additional opportunities. It is a bit scary that you opine that individuals who have worked hard to accrue money should not be allowed to take advantage of that work. What if they were to buy for primary occupancy? Change the system, but do not penalize them. Or should they not even be allowed to buy for cash on the resale market either? Wouldn’t the cash offers they put out drive the market up because someone who finances would have to overbid to get the financed offer accepted?
Again, you are blaming individuals who are trying to make money rather then a system that is inept. A fair system would simply 100% NOT ALLOW people to buy homes who couldn’t afford them. You want equitable solutions then make everyone come in with 30% cash. Yet wouldn’t that eliminate alot of people from being able to buy a home? Stop FHA and low down loans. Prevent the problem by forcing large equity stakes. I think that is best but many would call that highly unfair, perhaps even racist since that could effectively kill the chances of many minorities to buy a home.
January 17, 2010 at 5:22 PM #503865ParticipantCAR I think you are making immense speculation that plays to the average poster but I don’t believe is close to accurate. Show me ANY sort of proof at all of the 40% number. Any at all. Look through tax rolls all you want, post internet announcements of huge PPIP purchases here in San Diego, I would be more then happy to read about them. That is staggering. So places like Encinitas, 4S, PQ, Carlsbad, Scripps, Tierra Santa, PB, OB, UC… some entities somewhere are scooping up these large quantities of homes (that we dont know about) according to your premise… Sorry no way do I agree. Not in the least.
Second off, how can you even question what a lender will price an REO at? How can you figure a home that fetched 900k will magically even list at 750k, and if it is listed at 750k wouldnt it be a more accurate presumption that it will be bid up if it went pending at 900k? You are making this absolute leap of faith that any REO is priced well below market and it will not ever get bid up. Take a look at the Beechtree listing in Encinitas. It was priced incorrectly by the lender and got swarmed. In fact, flippers most likely have LESS liquidity benefits over institutional lenders and will be MORE likely to cut prices FASTER if a home doesn’t sell.
Third, taking risks doesn’t entitle anyone to any reward big or small. That was never said or implied. The essence of your argument is that EVERYONE should be entitled to EVERY home regardless of individual accrual of resources. That is an awesomely scary statement. The fact is that ANYONE can go to a trustee sale. If you don’t have the cash then you cannot. Why is that not fair? It doesn’t matter if it is a flip or not a flip. People who can buy for cash will have access to additional opportunities. It is a bit scary that you opine that individuals who have worked hard to accrue money should not be allowed to take advantage of that work. What if they were to buy for primary occupancy? Change the system, but do not penalize them. Or should they not even be allowed to buy for cash on the resale market either? Wouldn’t the cash offers they put out drive the market up because someone who finances would have to overbid to get the financed offer accepted?
Again, you are blaming individuals who are trying to make money rather then a system that is inept. A fair system would simply 100% NOT ALLOW people to buy homes who couldn’t afford them. You want equitable solutions then make everyone come in with 30% cash. Yet wouldn’t that eliminate alot of people from being able to buy a home? Stop FHA and low down loans. Prevent the problem by forcing large equity stakes. I think that is best but many would call that highly unfair, perhaps even racist since that could effectively kill the chances of many minorities to buy a home.
January 17, 2010 at 9:08 PM #503029CA renter
Participant[quote=AN]CAR, shouldn’t you be blaming the government for bailing out he bank in the first place? BTW, I think the world you want doesn’t exist and instead of getting mad at the root of the problem, you seem to be more upset at tertiary problems.[/quote]
Yes, I blame the govt first and foremost. If you look at all my posts, you’ll see that the majority of my anger is directed at the government, the Federal Reserve, and the financial institutions (semi-public and private) who allowed things to get so far out of line. There is no question that they are the primary culprits in this whole debacle.
That still doesn’t mean we have to accept the behaviors and actions of all the people who take advantage of the system’s weaknesses. The people who design such a system are the primary problem; but that does not absolve those who jump in to take advantage of it.
January 17, 2010 at 9:08 PM #503176Participant[quote=AN]CAR, shouldn’t you be blaming the government for bailing out he bank in the first place? BTW, I think the world you want doesn’t exist and instead of getting mad at the root of the problem, you seem to be more upset at tertiary problems.[/quote]
Yes, I blame the govt first and foremost. If you look at all my posts, you’ll see that the majority of my anger is directed at the government, the Federal Reserve, and the financial institutions (semi-public and private) who allowed things to get so far out of line. There is no question that they are the primary culprits in this whole debacle.
That still doesn’t mean we have to accept the behaviors and actions of all the people who take advantage of the system’s weaknesses. The people who design such a system are the primary problem; but that does not absolve those who jump in to take advantage of it.
January 17, 2010 at 9:08 PM #503576Participant[quote=AN]CAR, shouldn’t you be blaming the government for bailing out he bank in the first place? BTW, I think the world you want doesn’t exist and instead of getting mad at the root of the problem, you seem to be more upset at tertiary problems.[/quote]
Yes, I blame the govt first and foremost. If you look at all my posts, you’ll see that the majority of my anger is directed at the government, the Federal Reserve, and the financial institutions (semi-public and private) who allowed things to get so far out of line. There is no question that they are the primary culprits in this whole debacle.
That still doesn’t mean we have to accept the behaviors and actions of all the people who take advantage of the system’s weaknesses. The people who design such a system are the primary problem; but that does not absolve those who jump in to take advantage of it.
January 17, 2010 at 9:08 PM #503668Participant[quote=AN]CAR, shouldn’t you be blaming the government for bailing out he bank in the first place? BTW, I think the world you want doesn’t exist and instead of getting mad at the root of the problem, you seem to be more upset at tertiary problems.[/quote]
Yes, I blame the govt first and foremost. If you look at all my posts, you’ll see that the majority of my anger is directed at the government, the Federal Reserve, and the financial institutions (semi-public and private) who allowed things to get so far out of line. There is no question that they are the primary culprits in this whole debacle.
That still doesn’t mean we have to accept the behaviors and actions of all the people who take advantage of the system’s weaknesses. The people who design such a system are the primary problem; but that does not absolve those who jump in to take advantage of it.
-
AuthorPosts
- The forum ‘Buying and Selling RE’ is closed to new topics and replies.