HOUSING: Feds suspend anti-flipping rule

[CA renter]

[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.

[CA renter]

[quote=pemeliza]”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.[/quote]

In an inventory-constrained market with high demand, the seller has more control over transaction/market prices. When inventory is plentiful, and demand is easily met, the buyers largely determine market prices. That’s the difference between a buyer’s market and a seller’s market. Make no mistake; we are currently witnessing a powerfully strong seller’s market.

When inventory is so low, flippers can command a premium, and somebody will likely pay it.

That’s why speculators cause a problem in a supply-constrained market. They overwhelm the demand while taking supply off the market **at a given point in time.** This is very bad market for organic buyers.

If banks were forced to foreclose on the houses (or at least if the government refused to support these banks in any way…they would fail, and inventory would be released on the market anyway), inventory wouldn’t be a problem; but from what I’m hearing, the govt is paying them to keep inventory off the market.

With the Bolero house, if the bank were to list it as an REO, and if we could get rid of all the speculation, they would get more money for it, and the buyer would pay less. That is a far better outcome than what happened with the flipper.

BTW, I don’t think people are willing to offer more on an REO than on a flip. Quite the contrary, from everything I’ve seen (and I’ve been and active observer of California real estate for decades). Of course, the banks might list for more because their cost basis is higher, but given two equal houses at a given point in time, I have yet to see people pay more for the REO than the flip.

BTW, the lot across the street is a steep slope. It’s doubtful anyone would ever build there. Even if they did, they would have to build down the hill, and it’s not likely to obstruct the view very much.

[CA renter]

[quote=pemeliza]”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.[/quote]

In an inventory-constrained market with high demand, the seller has more control over transaction/market prices. When inventory is plentiful, and demand is easily met, the buyers largely determine market prices. That’s the difference between a buyer’s market and a seller’s market. Make no mistake; we are currently witnessing a powerfully strong seller’s market.

When inventory is so low, flippers can command a premium, and somebody will likely pay it.

That’s why speculators cause a problem in a supply-constrained market. They overwhelm the demand while taking supply off the market **at a given point in time.** This is very bad market for organic buyers.

If banks were forced to foreclose on the houses (or at least if the government refused to support these banks in any way…they would fail, and inventory would be released on the market anyway), inventory wouldn’t be a problem; but from what I’m hearing, the govt is paying them to keep inventory off the market.

With the Bolero house, if the bank were to list it as an REO, and if we could get rid of all the speculation, they would get more money for it, and the buyer would pay less. That is a far better outcome than what happened with the flipper.

BTW, I don’t think people are willing to offer more on an REO than on a flip. Quite the contrary, from everything I’ve seen (and I’ve been and active observer of California real estate for decades). Of course, the banks might list for more because their cost basis is higher, but given two equal houses at a given point in time, I have yet to see people pay more for the REO than the flip.

BTW, the lot across the street is a steep slope. It’s doubtful anyone would ever build there. Even if they did, they would have to build down the hill, and it’s not likely to obstruct the view very much.

[CA renter]

[quote=pemeliza]”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.[/quote]

In an inventory-constrained market with high demand, the seller has more control over transaction/market prices. When inventory is plentiful, and demand is easily met, the buyers largely determine market prices. That’s the difference between a buyer’s market and a seller’s market. Make no mistake; we are currently witnessing a powerfully strong seller’s market.

When inventory is so low, flippers can command a premium, and somebody will likely pay it.

That’s why speculators cause a problem in a supply-constrained market. They overwhelm the demand while taking supply off the market **at a given point in time.** This is very bad market for organic buyers.

If banks were forced to foreclose on the houses (or at least if the government refused to support these banks in any way…they would fail, and inventory would be released on the market anyway), inventory wouldn’t be a problem; but from what I’m hearing, the govt is paying them to keep inventory off the market.

With the Bolero house, if the bank were to list it as an REO, and if we could get rid of all the speculation, they would get more money for it, and the buyer would pay less. That is a far better outcome than what happened with the flipper.

BTW, I don’t think people are willing to offer more on an REO than on a flip. Quite the contrary, from everything I’ve seen (and I’ve been and active observer of California real estate for decades). Of course, the banks might list for more because their cost basis is higher, but given two equal houses at a given point in time, I have yet to see people pay more for the REO than the flip.

BTW, the lot across the street is a steep slope. It’s doubtful anyone would ever build there. Even if they did, they would have to build down the hill, and it’s not likely to obstruct the view very much.

[CA renter]

[quote=pemeliza]”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.[/quote]

In an inventory-constrained market with high demand, the seller has more control over transaction/market prices. When inventory is plentiful, and demand is easily met, the buyers largely determine market prices. That’s the difference between a buyer’s market and a seller’s market. Make no mistake; we are currently witnessing a powerfully strong seller’s market.

When inventory is so low, flippers can command a premium, and somebody will likely pay it.

That’s why speculators cause a problem in a supply-constrained market. They overwhelm the demand while taking supply off the market **at a given point in time.** This is very bad market for organic buyers.

If banks were forced to foreclose on the houses (or at least if the government refused to support these banks in any way…they would fail, and inventory would be released on the market anyway), inventory wouldn’t be a problem; but from what I’m hearing, the govt is paying them to keep inventory off the market.

With the Bolero house, if the bank were to list it as an REO, and if we could get rid of all the speculation, they would get more money for it, and the buyer would pay less. That is a far better outcome than what happened with the flipper.

BTW, I don’t think people are willing to offer more on an REO than on a flip. Quite the contrary, from everything I’ve seen (and I’ve been and active observer of California real estate for decades). Of course, the banks might list for more because their cost basis is higher, but given two equal houses at a given point in time, I have yet to see people pay more for the REO than the flip.

BTW, the lot across the street is a steep slope. It’s doubtful anyone would ever build there. Even if they did, they would have to build down the hill, and it’s not likely to obstruct the view very much.

[CA renter]

[quote=pemeliza]”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.[/quote]

In an inventory-constrained market with high demand, the seller has more control over transaction/market prices. When inventory is plentiful, and demand is easily met, the buyers largely determine market prices. That’s the difference between a buyer’s market and a seller’s market. Make no mistake; we are currently witnessing a powerfully strong seller’s market.

When inventory is so low, flippers can command a premium, and somebody will likely pay it.

That’s why speculators cause a problem in a supply-constrained market. They overwhelm the demand while taking supply off the market **at a given point in time.** This is very bad market for organic buyers.

If banks were forced to foreclose on the houses (or at least if the government refused to support these banks in any way…they would fail, and inventory would be released on the market anyway), inventory wouldn’t be a problem; but from what I’m hearing, the govt is paying them to keep inventory off the market.

With the Bolero house, if the bank were to list it as an REO, and if we could get rid of all the speculation, they would get more money for it, and the buyer would pay less. That is a far better outcome than what happened with the flipper.

BTW, I don’t think people are willing to offer more on an REO than on a flip. Quite the contrary, from everything I’ve seen (and I’ve been and active observer of California real estate for decades). Of course, the banks might list for more because their cost basis is higher, but given two equal houses at a given point in time, I have yet to see people pay more for the REO than the flip.

BTW, the lot across the street is a steep slope. It’s doubtful anyone would ever build there. Even if they did, they would have to build down the hill, and it’s not likely to obstruct the view very much.

[CA renter]

[quote=SD Realtor]CAR 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.[/quote]

SDR,

You know it’s not public information. That’s the whole entire point — they don’t want the public to know about it! I’ve seen the transaction amounts and seen some of the tapes on the bulk deals. The deals are done in bulk, so there is no publicly recorded price for each individual property. For example, they might have $500MM tape of middle-tier properties in California, in fair shape. This tape might include hundreds or thousands of homes just in that single transaction. The transaction is treated as a bundle, without prices being assigned to the individual properties.

Many of these deals are being done this year. Since you’re a broker (agent?), you might be able to get in touch with some of the people who are facilitating these deals, and you can ask them all about it.

I know what I do because of some friends in L.A. who were trying to put together some of these deals, but it is very much understood that everything is supposed to be kept secret. You’re not even allowed to know the name of the selling bank if you’re one of the bulk buyers, from what I hear. Because of this, it’s virtually impossible to get any good numbers, but one can readily see that huge transactions are being done on a fairly regular basis. The one that I was familiar with was a $30 BILLION dollar transaction with a Chinese firm. No speculation? We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Yes, I fault the system. Yes, I agree that we need 20-30% down payment requirements. And yes, I think priority should be given to regular people who are trying to buy homes instead of limiting the best-priced inventory to cash-rich speculators.

BTW, this isn’t about me, and it’s not a personal thing. We have enough cash to buy at the courthouse steps (or on the open market in coastal North County), but are not doing it because of all the “professional” flippers who have their connections at the title companies, etc. and because of all the games being played with the postponements and cancellations.

The banks should be forced by the FDIC and other govt regulators to take these properties back and they should then be forced to auction them off on a national site (with a minimum 30-day marketing time) where online bidders are pre-qualified through the GSEs and every transaction can be tracked. It would be the best solution for the banks, taxpayers, and the buyers. Nobody else is owed anything.

[CA renter]

[quote=SD Realtor]CAR 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.[/quote]

SDR,

You know it’s not public information. That’s the whole entire point — they don’t want the public to know about it! I’ve seen the transaction amounts and seen some of the tapes on the bulk deals. The deals are done in bulk, so there is no publicly recorded price for each individual property. For example, they might have $500MM tape of middle-tier properties in California, in fair shape. This tape might include hundreds or thousands of homes just in that single transaction. The transaction is treated as a bundle, without prices being assigned to the individual properties.

Many of these deals are being done this year. Since you’re a broker (agent?), you might be able to get in touch with some of the people who are facilitating these deals, and you can ask them all about it.

I know what I do because of some friends in L.A. who were trying to put together some of these deals, but it is very much understood that everything is supposed to be kept secret. You’re not even allowed to know the name of the selling bank if you’re one of the bulk buyers, from what I hear. Because of this, it’s virtually impossible to get any good numbers, but one can readily see that huge transactions are being done on a fairly regular basis. The one that I was familiar with was a $30 BILLION dollar transaction with a Chinese firm. No speculation? We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Yes, I fault the system. Yes, I agree that we need 20-30% down payment requirements. And yes, I think priority should be given to regular people who are trying to buy homes instead of limiting the best-priced inventory to cash-rich speculators.

BTW, this isn’t about me, and it’s not a personal thing. We have enough cash to buy at the courthouse steps (or on the open market in coastal North County), but are not doing it because of all the “professional” flippers who have their connections at the title companies, etc. and because of all the games being played with the postponements and cancellations.

The banks should be forced by the FDIC and other govt regulators to take these properties back and they should then be forced to auction them off on a national site (with a minimum 30-day marketing time) where online bidders are pre-qualified through the GSEs and every transaction can be tracked. It would be the best solution for the banks, taxpayers, and the buyers. Nobody else is owed anything.

[CA renter]

[quote=SD Realtor]CAR 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.[/quote]

SDR,

You know it’s not public information. That’s the whole entire point — they don’t want the public to know about it! I’ve seen the transaction amounts and seen some of the tapes on the bulk deals. The deals are done in bulk, so there is no publicly recorded price for each individual property. For example, they might have $500MM tape of middle-tier properties in California, in fair shape. This tape might include hundreds or thousands of homes just in that single transaction. The transaction is treated as a bundle, without prices being assigned to the individual properties.

Many of these deals are being done this year. Since you’re a broker (agent?), you might be able to get in touch with some of the people who are facilitating these deals, and you can ask them all about it.

I know what I do because of some friends in L.A. who were trying to put together some of these deals, but it is very much understood that everything is supposed to be kept secret. You’re not even allowed to know the name of the selling bank if you’re one of the bulk buyers, from what I hear. Because of this, it’s virtually impossible to get any good numbers, but one can readily see that huge transactions are being done on a fairly regular basis. The one that I was familiar with was a $30 BILLION dollar transaction with a Chinese firm. No speculation? We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Yes, I fault the system. Yes, I agree that we need 20-30% down payment requirements. And yes, I think priority should be given to regular people who are trying to buy homes instead of limiting the best-priced inventory to cash-rich speculators.

BTW, this isn’t about me, and it’s not a personal thing. We have enough cash to buy at the courthouse steps (or on the open market in coastal North County), but are not doing it because of all the “professional” flippers who have their connections at the title companies, etc. and because of all the games being played with the postponements and cancellations.

The banks should be forced by the FDIC and other govt regulators to take these properties back and they should then be forced to auction them off on a national site (with a minimum 30-day marketing time) where online bidders are pre-qualified through the GSEs and every transaction can be tracked. It would be the best solution for the banks, taxpayers, and the buyers. Nobody else is owed anything.

[CA renter]

[quote=SD Realtor]CAR 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.[/quote]

SDR,

You know it’s not public information. That’s the whole entire point — they don’t want the public to know about it! I’ve seen the transaction amounts and seen some of the tapes on the bulk deals. The deals are done in bulk, so there is no publicly recorded price for each individual property. For example, they might have $500MM tape of middle-tier properties in California, in fair shape. This tape might include hundreds or thousands of homes just in that single transaction. The transaction is treated as a bundle, without prices being assigned to the individual properties.

Many of these deals are being done this year. Since you’re a broker (agent?), you might be able to get in touch with some of the people who are facilitating these deals, and you can ask them all about it.

I know what I do because of some friends in L.A. who were trying to put together some of these deals, but it is very much understood that everything is supposed to be kept secret. You’re not even allowed to know the name of the selling bank if you’re one of the bulk buyers, from what I hear. Because of this, it’s virtually impossible to get any good numbers, but one can readily see that huge transactions are being done on a fairly regular basis. The one that I was familiar with was a $30 BILLION dollar transaction with a Chinese firm. No speculation? We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Yes, I fault the system. Yes, I agree that we need 20-30% down payment requirements. And yes, I think priority should be given to regular people who are trying to buy homes instead of limiting the best-priced inventory to cash-rich speculators.

BTW, this isn’t about me, and it’s not a personal thing. We have enough cash to buy at the courthouse steps (or on the open market in coastal North County), but are not doing it because of all the “professional” flippers who have their connections at the title companies, etc. and because of all the games being played with the postponements and cancellations.

The banks should be forced by the FDIC and other govt regulators to take these properties back and they should then be forced to auction them off on a national site (with a minimum 30-day marketing time) where online bidders are pre-qualified through the GSEs and every transaction can be tracked. It would be the best solution for the banks, taxpayers, and the buyers. Nobody else is owed anything.

[CA renter]

[quote=SD Realtor]CAR 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.[/quote]

SDR,

You know it’s not public information. That’s the whole entire point — they don’t want the public to know about it! I’ve seen the transaction amounts and seen some of the tapes on the bulk deals. The deals are done in bulk, so there is no publicly recorded price for each individual property. For example, they might have $500MM tape of middle-tier properties in California, in fair shape. This tape might include hundreds or thousands of homes just in that single transaction. The transaction is treated as a bundle, without prices being assigned to the individual properties.

Many of these deals are being done this year. Since you’re a broker (agent?), you might be able to get in touch with some of the people who are facilitating these deals, and you can ask them all about it.

I know what I do because of some friends in L.A. who were trying to put together some of these deals, but it is very much understood that everything is supposed to be kept secret. You’re not even allowed to know the name of the selling bank if you’re one of the bulk buyers, from what I hear. Because of this, it’s virtually impossible to get any good numbers, but one can readily see that huge transactions are being done on a fairly regular basis. The one that I was familiar with was a $30 BILLION dollar transaction with a Chinese firm. No speculation? We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Yes, I fault the system. Yes, I agree that we need 20-30% down payment requirements. And yes, I think priority should be given to regular people who are trying to buy homes instead of limiting the best-priced inventory to cash-rich speculators.

BTW, this isn’t about me, and it’s not a personal thing. We have enough cash to buy at the courthouse steps (or on the open market in coastal North County), but are not doing it because of all the “professional” flippers who have their connections at the title companies, etc. and because of all the games being played with the postponements and cancellations.

The banks should be forced by the FDIC and other govt regulators to take these properties back and they should then be forced to auction them off on a national site (with a minimum 30-day marketing time) where online bidders are pre-qualified through the GSEs and every transaction can be tracked. It would be the best solution for the banks, taxpayers, and the buyers. Nobody else is owed anything.

[Arraya]

[quote] Stop FHA and low down loans.

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.[/quote]

Methinks banks would through a bigger fit than minorities. In fact, nobody benefits more from low down loans, keeping RE values high and artificial scarcity than the financial industry including RE agents. Way more than the minorities.

[Arraya]

[quote] Stop FHA and low down loans.

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.[/quote]

Methinks banks would through a bigger fit than minorities. In fact, nobody benefits more from low down loans, keeping RE values high and artificial scarcity than the financial industry including RE agents. Way more than the minorities.

[Arraya]

[quote] Stop FHA and low down loans.

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.[/quote]

Methinks banks would through a bigger fit than minorities. In fact, nobody benefits more from low down loans, keeping RE values high and artificial scarcity than the financial industry including RE agents. Way more than the minorities.

[Arraya]

[quote] Stop FHA and low down loans.

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.[/quote]

Methinks banks would through a bigger fit than minorities. In fact, nobody benefits more from low down loans, keeping RE values high and artificial scarcity than the financial industry including RE agents. Way more than the minorities.

[Author]

Posts