HOUSING: Feds suspend anti-flipping rule

[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.

[scaredyclassic]

these discussions make me feel like i am the sucker.

[scaredyclassic]

these discussions make me feel like i am the sucker.

[scaredyclassic]

these discussions make me feel like i am the sucker.

[scaredyclassic]

these discussions make me feel like i am the sucker.

[scaredyclassic]

these discussions make me feel like i am the sucker.

[pemeliza]

“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.”

This certainly has not been my experience. Last year a listing on Obelisco Place came on the market hot at $799k. It was a REO. I bid 825k all cash and got blown out of the water. The house sold for 891k.

The house on Bolero is 1000 sq. ft. larger and has the more direct westerly view that everyone wants (Obelisco place had more of a north view) and you are suggesting it would sell for $750k as a REO? I have not personally seen Bolero, but that price just seems totally out of line with that area for a house with that kind of view (especially if it is protected as you say). You would end up with the mother of all bidding wars if it was priced at 750k and there is no way an organic buyer with 20% down would be able to compete.

I think what you are saying and what you have been saying all along is that if the banks were somehow forced to immediately list all of their foreclosures for sale than we would have more supply than demand and places like this would routinely sell for $750k or less (especially if the feds allowed interest rates to float into the 7-8% range and eliminated buyer incentives). Furthermore, there would be no cash buyers because there would be no speculators trying to exploit the supply imbalance and every cash buyer (most?) is a speculator.

First of all, the buyer incentives pretty much don’t apply to the luxury coastal home market. As far as interest rates go we are in a recession (depression) and interest rates are always low in such circumstances. Note that the yield on the 3 month T-bill was 0% BEFORE the fed cut interest rates to zero. In other words the fed simply followed the market down. As far as buying MBS yes that has helped the mortgage market. With prices in a free-fall would we have a mortgage market at all without the fed stepping in? Who wants to lend money at any interest rate on a depreciating asset in a non-recourse lending environment?

As far as forcing banks to put houses on the market, that would help supply for a time period but then what? The people in La Costa Estates that bought long ago know about the market cycles in Southern California. Why would they sell at the bottom of the cycle? BTW, 750k for the house on Bolero is a 2001 price (maybe lower). There was one at 2649 Marmol Ct. that sold for $747k in March of 2001 and it was on the corner of a busy street (El Fuerte). It was a decent house but nothing special … I looked at it back then when it was listed at $799k. At the time, the vacant lot next to the house was listed at $700k (not sure what it sold for). That house on Bolero looks to be a better location and it is a bigger house. The only downside is that the view is out of the front of the house instead of the back.

[pemeliza]

“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.”

This certainly has not been my experience. Last year a listing on Obelisco Place came on the market hot at $799k. It was a REO. I bid 825k all cash and got blown out of the water. The house sold for 891k.

The house on Bolero is 1000 sq. ft. larger and has the more direct westerly view that everyone wants (Obelisco place had more of a north view) and you are suggesting it would sell for $750k as a REO? I have not personally seen Bolero, but that price just seems totally out of line with that area for a house with that kind of view (especially if it is protected as you say). You would end up with the mother of all bidding wars if it was priced at 750k and there is no way an organic buyer with 20% down would be able to compete.

I think what you are saying and what you have been saying all along is that if the banks were somehow forced to immediately list all of their foreclosures for sale than we would have more supply than demand and places like this would routinely sell for $750k or less (especially if the feds allowed interest rates to float into the 7-8% range and eliminated buyer incentives). Furthermore, there would be no cash buyers because there would be no speculators trying to exploit the supply imbalance and every cash buyer (most?) is a speculator.

First of all, the buyer incentives pretty much don’t apply to the luxury coastal home market. As far as interest rates go we are in a recession (depression) and interest rates are always low in such circumstances. Note that the yield on the 3 month T-bill was 0% BEFORE the fed cut interest rates to zero. In other words the fed simply followed the market down. As far as buying MBS yes that has helped the mortgage market. With prices in a free-fall would we have a mortgage market at all without the fed stepping in? Who wants to lend money at any interest rate on a depreciating asset in a non-recourse lending environment?

As far as forcing banks to put houses on the market, that would help supply for a time period but then what? The people in La Costa Estates that bought long ago know about the market cycles in Southern California. Why would they sell at the bottom of the cycle? BTW, 750k for the house on Bolero is a 2001 price (maybe lower). There was one at 2649 Marmol Ct. that sold for $747k in March of 2001 and it was on the corner of a busy street (El Fuerte). It was a decent house but nothing special … I looked at it back then when it was listed at $799k. At the time, the vacant lot next to the house was listed at $700k (not sure what it sold for). That house on Bolero looks to be a better location and it is a bigger house. The only downside is that the view is out of the front of the house instead of the back.

[pemeliza]

“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.”

This certainly has not been my experience. Last year a listing on Obelisco Place came on the market hot at $799k. It was a REO. I bid 825k all cash and got blown out of the water. The house sold for 891k.

The house on Bolero is 1000 sq. ft. larger and has the more direct westerly view that everyone wants (Obelisco place had more of a north view) and you are suggesting it would sell for $750k as a REO? I have not personally seen Bolero, but that price just seems totally out of line with that area for a house with that kind of view (especially if it is protected as you say). You would end up with the mother of all bidding wars if it was priced at 750k and there is no way an organic buyer with 20% down would be able to compete.

I think what you are saying and what you have been saying all along is that if the banks were somehow forced to immediately list all of their foreclosures for sale than we would have more supply than demand and places like this would routinely sell for $750k or less (especially if the feds allowed interest rates to float into the 7-8% range and eliminated buyer incentives). Furthermore, there would be no cash buyers because there would be no speculators trying to exploit the supply imbalance and every cash buyer (most?) is a speculator.

First of all, the buyer incentives pretty much don’t apply to the luxury coastal home market. As far as interest rates go we are in a recession (depression) and interest rates are always low in such circumstances. Note that the yield on the 3 month T-bill was 0% BEFORE the fed cut interest rates to zero. In other words the fed simply followed the market down. As far as buying MBS yes that has helped the mortgage market. With prices in a free-fall would we have a mortgage market at all without the fed stepping in? Who wants to lend money at any interest rate on a depreciating asset in a non-recourse lending environment?

As far as forcing banks to put houses on the market, that would help supply for a time period but then what? The people in La Costa Estates that bought long ago know about the market cycles in Southern California. Why would they sell at the bottom of the cycle? BTW, 750k for the house on Bolero is a 2001 price (maybe lower). There was one at 2649 Marmol Ct. that sold for $747k in March of 2001 and it was on the corner of a busy street (El Fuerte). It was a decent house but nothing special … I looked at it back then when it was listed at $799k. At the time, the vacant lot next to the house was listed at $700k (not sure what it sold for). That house on Bolero looks to be a better location and it is a bigger house. The only downside is that the view is out of the front of the house instead of the back.

[pemeliza]

“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.”

This certainly has not been my experience. Last year a listing on Obelisco Place came on the market hot at $799k. It was a REO. I bid 825k all cash and got blown out of the water. The house sold for 891k.

The house on Bolero is 1000 sq. ft. larger and has the more direct westerly view that everyone wants (Obelisco place had more of a north view) and you are suggesting it would sell for $750k as a REO? I have not personally seen Bolero, but that price just seems totally out of line with that area for a house with that kind of view (especially if it is protected as you say). You would end up with the mother of all bidding wars if it was priced at 750k and there is no way an organic buyer with 20% down would be able to compete.

I think what you are saying and what you have been saying all along is that if the banks were somehow forced to immediately list all of their foreclosures for sale than we would have more supply than demand and places like this would routinely sell for $750k or less (especially if the feds allowed interest rates to float into the 7-8% range and eliminated buyer incentives). Furthermore, there would be no cash buyers because there would be no speculators trying to exploit the supply imbalance and every cash buyer (most?) is a speculator.

First of all, the buyer incentives pretty much don’t apply to the luxury coastal home market. As far as interest rates go we are in a recession (depression) and interest rates are always low in such circumstances. Note that the yield on the 3 month T-bill was 0% BEFORE the fed cut interest rates to zero. In other words the fed simply followed the market down. As far as buying MBS yes that has helped the mortgage market. With prices in a free-fall would we have a mortgage market at all without the fed stepping in? Who wants to lend money at any interest rate on a depreciating asset in a non-recourse lending environment?

As far as forcing banks to put houses on the market, that would help supply for a time period but then what? The people in La Costa Estates that bought long ago know about the market cycles in Southern California. Why would they sell at the bottom of the cycle? BTW, 750k for the house on Bolero is a 2001 price (maybe lower). There was one at 2649 Marmol Ct. that sold for $747k in March of 2001 and it was on the corner of a busy street (El Fuerte). It was a decent house but nothing special … I looked at it back then when it was listed at $799k. At the time, the vacant lot next to the house was listed at $700k (not sure what it sold for). That house on Bolero looks to be a better location and it is a bigger house. The only downside is that the view is out of the front of the house instead of the back.

[pemeliza]

“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.”

This certainly has not been my experience. Last year a listing on Obelisco Place came on the market hot at $799k. It was a REO. I bid 825k all cash and got blown out of the water. The house sold for 891k.

The house on Bolero is 1000 sq. ft. larger and has the more direct westerly view that everyone wants (Obelisco place had more of a north view) and you are suggesting it would sell for $750k as a REO? I have not personally seen Bolero, but that price just seems totally out of line with that area for a house with that kind of view (especially if it is protected as you say). You would end up with the mother of all bidding wars if it was priced at 750k and there is no way an organic buyer with 20% down would be able to compete.

I think what you are saying and what you have been saying all along is that if the banks were somehow forced to immediately list all of their foreclosures for sale than we would have more supply than demand and places like this would routinely sell for $750k or less (especially if the feds allowed interest rates to float into the 7-8% range and eliminated buyer incentives). Furthermore, there would be no cash buyers because there would be no speculators trying to exploit the supply imbalance and every cash buyer (most?) is a speculator.

First of all, the buyer incentives pretty much don’t apply to the luxury coastal home market. As far as interest rates go we are in a recession (depression) and interest rates are always low in such circumstances. Note that the yield on the 3 month T-bill was 0% BEFORE the fed cut interest rates to zero. In other words the fed simply followed the market down. As far as buying MBS yes that has helped the mortgage market. With prices in a free-fall would we have a mortgage market at all without the fed stepping in? Who wants to lend money at any interest rate on a depreciating asset in a non-recourse lending environment?

As far as forcing banks to put houses on the market, that would help supply for a time period but then what? The people in La Costa Estates that bought long ago know about the market cycles in Southern California. Why would they sell at the bottom of the cycle? BTW, 750k for the house on Bolero is a 2001 price (maybe lower). There was one at 2649 Marmol Ct. that sold for $747k in March of 2001 and it was on the corner of a busy street (El Fuerte). It was a decent house but nothing special … I looked at it back then when it was listed at $799k. At the time, the vacant lot next to the house was listed at $700k (not sure what it sold for). That house on Bolero looks to be a better location and it is a bigger house. The only downside is that the view is out of the front of the house instead of the back.

[NotCranky]

I think a new Nobel peace prize category should be created for upper middle class 20-30% down, good neighborhood buyers. Something for those who fight against the injustice flippers, wetbacks and other people …rich or poor, insert into the aquisition process. In fact, if we could drive union wages down then housing prices would fall too.

Alternatively we could just never buy a house which would be the best thing for the market. Never buy a house and move in with family or friends. If we could turn away from a life of independent luxury and vouluntarily create increased density, on Mortgage free properties, then the banks would be screwed, Flippers would be screwed and there would be no buyers for the FHA to use as middle men to transfer the losses in the housing market to tax payers.People would be free from economic insecurity all around.

Simply requiring 20%-30% down would really have a very modest effect on to the evils of the debt for shelter system.Probably unintended consquences would make things as bad or worse for many people as it has ever been.

[NotCranky]

I think a new Nobel peace prize category should be created for upper middle class 20-30% down, good neighborhood buyers. Something for those who fight against the injustice flippers, wetbacks and other people …rich or poor, insert into the aquisition process. In fact, if we could drive union wages down then housing prices would fall too.

Alternatively we could just never buy a house which would be the best thing for the market. Never buy a house and move in with family or friends. If we could turn away from a life of independent luxury and vouluntarily create increased density, on Mortgage free properties, then the banks would be screwed, Flippers would be screwed and there would be no buyers for the FHA to use as middle men to transfer the losses in the housing market to tax payers.People would be free from economic insecurity all around.

Simply requiring 20%-30% down would really have a very modest effect on to the evils of the debt for shelter system.Probably unintended consquences would make things as bad or worse for many people as it has ever been.

[NotCranky]

I think a new Nobel peace prize category should be created for upper middle class 20-30% down, good neighborhood buyers. Something for those who fight against the injustice flippers, wetbacks and other people …rich or poor, insert into the aquisition process. In fact, if we could drive union wages down then housing prices would fall too.

Alternatively we could just never buy a house which would be the best thing for the market. Never buy a house and move in with family or friends. If we could turn away from a life of independent luxury and vouluntarily create increased density, on Mortgage free properties, then the banks would be screwed, Flippers would be screwed and there would be no buyers for the FHA to use as middle men to transfer the losses in the housing market to tax payers.People would be free from economic insecurity all around.

Simply requiring 20%-30% down would really have a very modest effect on to the evils of the debt for shelter system.Probably unintended consquences would make things as bad or worse for many people as it has ever been.

[NotCranky]

I think a new Nobel peace prize category should be created for upper middle class 20-30% down, good neighborhood buyers. Something for those who fight against the injustice flippers, wetbacks and other people …rich or poor, insert into the aquisition process. In fact, if we could drive union wages down then housing prices would fall too.

Alternatively we could just never buy a house which would be the best thing for the market. Never buy a house and move in with family or friends. If we could turn away from a life of independent luxury and vouluntarily create increased density, on Mortgage free properties, then the banks would be screwed, Flippers would be screwed and there would be no buyers for the FHA to use as middle men to transfer the losses in the housing market to tax payers.People would be free from economic insecurity all around.

Simply requiring 20%-30% down would really have a very modest effect on to the evils of the debt for shelter system.Probably unintended consquences would make things as bad or worse for many people as it has ever been.

[Author]

Posts