- This topic has 215 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 1 month ago by
briansd1.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 5, 2012 at 12:33 PM #739314March 5, 2012 at 12:34 PM #739311
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=paramount][quote=sdrealtor]In a market like Temecula there should be a very good pool of tenants as long as you have a nice newer home. There are lots of well employed folks up there that had to walk away from deeply underwater homes. I know firefighters, teachers, doctors, nurses, policeman, retirees on good pensions and yes Realtors who have done so. With the exception of the realtors they all have great recession proof incomes. What they dont have any more is good enough credit to buy homes so they will be renters for many years to come. If they could buy they would be buying some of the nicest homes up there but they cant. Thats why they dont want paramount’s smallish old house. They want nice newer homes in places like Wolf Creek and Harveston as rentals.[/quote]
The paragraph above illustrates perfectly the pandemic disease of materialism that exists in southern California.
A nice newer home? What is a newer home? If a home is 10 years old, should it be torn down and replaced with a new home? Are homes like cars now, after 5 years/100k time to get rid of it? This mentality makes no sense to me. Older homes often have better locations; perfect examples of this are Wolf Creek and particularly Harveston (both newer homes/communities in less desirable locations).
And these so-called well employed people are the primary reason I’m so underwater, not to mention the considerable damage they’ve done to the economy.
They should never be allowed to own a house again, but we all know it’s just about as easy to get a mortgage now as it was 7 years ago. They win, I lose. Well not quite, because I have no intention of letting those fools take me down with them.
What these so-called well employed fools need is a reality check. But they feel entitled to a McMansion.
Yah, I want a house in Morgan Hill looking down on the proletariat – but of course I live within my means so I don’t.
Pea Brains (these ‘well employed’ people).
Did I just say that out loud?[/quote]
Excellent post, paramount! And bear in mind that the only people who have thus far made any “decent” money out of these “strategic-defaulting pea-brains” are “realtors!!”
All other homeowners have taken a big hit for these “pea-brains'” arrogance, stupidity and sense of entitlement. This will continue to occur until these lenders (esp the Big Banks) get wise to them and promptly foreclose on the 111th or 141st day after the first missed payment.
How much “underwater” does a typical “pea-brain” have to be for their lenders to call it a day and do what they should have done from the beginning …. FORECLOSE! Does being 100% underwater (owe $1M and their property worth $500K on a bright sunny day) qualify?? HOW are these many thousands of home-debtors now going to “catch up?” Ever heard of any lenders taking $400K+ short in a “short sale” when the property is only worth $400K??
Acc to my ongoing “independent study,” this appears to be what we’re coming to, Piggs. The amount of current opening bids on TS’s I am currently following are ASTOUNDING given the value of of the underlying security (or collateral). And of course these bids adjust upwards every time a TS is postponed.
Where does it END???
[end of rant]
March 5, 2012 at 12:48 PM #739316Participant[quote=sdrealtor]…When (“these people”) go to rent a house they want something nice and have the income to pay for it. They are not getting handouts.
For these folks it has nothing to do with entitlement. They want a nice place to live and can afford to pay for one. If they made stupid mistakes it was buying into an overpriced market. If you are going to call them that I have no problem there. Just make sure to look in the mirror and call that guy stupid too.[/quote] (clarification added)
Unfortunately, “these people’s” credit SUCKS, regardless of their current income. In addition, most of “these people” have a high consumer debtload and a potential landlord has to ask themselves how they got into that pickle upon analyzing their rental applications.
*****************
LOL, sdr makes it sound as if the typical “pea brain” (his typical “RE client?”) is simply a victim of “millenium-boom” buying. Nothing could be further from the truth. 80% of “these people” are “victims” (lol) of their OWN “cash-out” refi and serial HELOCing, whether or not they were actually “millenium-boom buyers.”
paramount doesn’t need to “look in the mirror.” He states he bought 10 years ago (2002?). He shouldn’t be a likely victim of “these people” but alas . . . he is . . . as are many millions more of homeowners just like him.
March 5, 2012 at 12:54 PM #739315sdrealtor
ParticipantTG
Two points. There are plenty of folks with good income and actually decent credit scores who cant buy homes. Not everyone ends up with sub 600 FICO’s. I have seen 780 FICO scores documented by past clients 6 months after a short sale. What they cant get is gov’t backed mortgages because they dont qualify under the guidelines.As convenient as it may be to think all these people bought vacation homes, timeshares, lavish vacation, expensive cars etc I have seen otherwise. The ones who were that irresponsible were more often than not in the liar loan crowd based upon what i have run into. Most of the ones I have run into lived pretty modest lives and this was their one big mistake. Many spent years trying to keep the property but eventually realized it was futile. I have clients that moved into parents homes and rented out their underwater while supplementing the shortfall for 4 years. Eventually the writing was on the wall for them.
People with bad credit but very good incomes are all over the place these days. None of my clients has had any trouble finding a nice rental as long as they have income. Thats all landlords really care about.
Just to be clear. I am not saying the well employed are the majority. What I am saying is they are the better tenants out there than the liar loan crowd. So paramounts older, smallish house appeals to the liar loan crowd while the well employed still have the income to rent a nicer/newer home. Nothing more, nothing less.
March 5, 2012 at 12:58 PM #739317ParticipantI think I’m going to go find me a “pea brain” this summer (in San Marcos??) to take their free-and-clear luxury SUV off their hands so they can get some moving $$. I’ve been needing an AWD/4WD vehicle for a few years now.
You’re right TG . . . time to make a deal!
March 5, 2012 at 10:02 PM #739334paramount
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]Paramount
Just got back to town. These well employed people arent the primary reason you are underwater. The market collapsed because liar loans were made to people that had no business buying homes. They didnt have the income to pay back their loans at 0% interest and were relaint on continued appreciation.When the market stopped going up these were the first people to bail and I saw it all over the more affordable communities in SoCal. This pulled the values down sharply to a point that well employed folks found themselves underwater a few hundred thousand dollars that they didnt have or knew they had non-recourse loans. These people arent pea brains they are making educated business decisions to avail themselves of their legal options in the contracts they signed. One of those options is I dont want the house so you can have it back.
When they go to rent a house they want something nice and have the income to pay for it. They are not getting handouts.
For these folks it has nothing to do with entitlement. They want a nice place to live and can afford to pay for one. If they made stupid mistakes it was buying into an overpriced market. If you are going to call them that I have no problem there. Just make sure to look in the mirror and call that guy stupid too.[/quote]
Wait, what?
Who was doing the lying? Many of these well employed people were doing just that I’m sure, or buying a house I’m sure they knew they couldn’t afford in the 1st place.
When I originally bought I did so well within my means, including looking forward as best I could.
What drives these pea brains is materialism, inferiority complexes and little else.
Their wants go far beyond a ‘nice’ place to live; and a 1500 sq ft house can be perfectly nice.
They can afford to rent ‘nice’ places as you put it b/c they screwed the system, period. Including me…
Let’s not bestow the ‘well employed’ a level of dignity they do not deserve.
March 5, 2012 at 10:49 PM #739337ParticipantSorry if you took it the wrong way but my point is you cant paint everyone with the same broad brush. You have no idea who these people are or what drives them. There is black, white and every shade of gray in between.
The major drops in outlying areas like Temecula, Oceanside, SM, Escondido, CVH, East County etc were caused by folks who took out liar loans. As soon as the music stopped they walked. The well employed folks in those areas stood in stunned amazement at what happened and hoped for things to turn around. Eventually they saw the writing on the wall that no recovery was near. Your anger is causing you to stereotype them all in one category when that is an oversimplification of things
I beleive you bought within your means. Additionally, not everyone out there who got caught upside down took out liar loans. Some did and some didnt. My business model tends to attract the non-liar loan crowd so I know they are out there. They got caught in the same shit you did. They have just chosen a different path out than you. I’ll add that its a path which makes perfect sense whether you chose it or not.
I do have one question which you can answer or not. Have you refied out even one penny more than your original loan amount from your origianl purchase. Not that it would change my opinion but just curious.
March 6, 2012 at 7:17 AM #739350Anonymous
Guest[quote=sdrealtor]The major drops in outlying areas like Temecula, Oceanside, SM, Escondido, CVH, East County etc were caused by folks who took out liar loans.[/quote]
I think this is generally true, and another factor is that the outlying areas tended to be more popular with investors, especially investors who purchased multiple properties.
I had a neighbor who bought about 20 homes in my development alone. He bought them all with liar loans (and subsequently lost them.) The lower prices and higher availability of new homes in places like Temecula, etc. allowed for bigger abuses.
Today, all this has settled out and there is very little evidence of foreclosure in my neighborhood. My “investor” neighbor is long gone and the home is owned by a retiree with steady income.
March 6, 2012 at 8:30 AM #739354ParticipantGood point about the multiple home purchases by unskilled investors. I know two people that own 3 homes in mine. One bought them all in 1999 and has rented them out the whole time. The other has moved 3 times paying cash for each of them as his business grows. In Temecula there was a massive amount of speculation by unskilled investors using liar loans and that did a lot more damage than well employed folks who walked after the drops already occurred.
March 6, 2012 at 9:52 AM #739358Ren
ParticipantParamount, I believe you bought just before what would have been the peak of a normal cycle, and so would have been in a similar situation whether the bubble happened or not. Prices and rents in TV these days are not abnormally low – they’re appropriate for an area with almost no white collar employment. I also believe you’ve taken the smartest road available to you, and in 10 years you’ll be glad you did. You may even view today’s bitterness as a waste of time.
March 6, 2012 at 10:23 AM #739361briansd1
Guest[quote=sdrealtor] There are lots of well employed folks up there that had to walk away from deeply underwater homes. I know firefighters, teachers, doctors, nurses, policeman, retirees on good pensions and yes Realtors who have done so. With the exception of the realtors they all have great recession proof incomes. What they dont have any more is good enough credit to buy homes so they will be renters for many years to come. [/quote]
I’ve observe the same thing, sdrealtor, but I wonder why those well-employed folks HAD to walk away because they are underwater.
I don’t if you ever said so, but I know plenty of Realtors who claimed that people who could “afford” their houses would never walk away as long as they can make the payments. (Supposedly, those owners were well qualified to be buy at the peak).
March 6, 2012 at 10:30 AM #739362ParticipantI never said they wouldnt walk away. In full disclosure, I did say they were less likely to walk and had more invested in remaining a part of their communities both of which have proven true. Again things are not so B&W as people around here would have them particularly those of very analytical minds. There is a ton of nuance in the world.
I think I made it pretty clear that those folks didnt have to walk away. They had choices, they weighed the pros vs cons and made the best decisions they could going forward.
March 6, 2012 at 10:42 AM #739365Guest[quote=sdrealtor]
I think I made it pretty clear that those folks didnt have to walk away. They had choices, they weighed the pros vs cons and made the best decisions they could going forward.[/quote]
Yes, I agree sdrealtor. People will make their choices. As long as the market goes sideways and doesn’t return to peak levels, more and more of those well-employed people will walk away, until they are all gone, except for a few.
I think it’s a psychological keeping up with the Joneses and not wanted to get screwed thing — the reverse, of buy now or forever be priced out.
For new developments such as Temecula and Downtown that were mostly built during the boom, I expect to see few boom-time buyers left standing, after all is said and done.
[quote=sdrealtor]I never said they wouldnt walk away. In full disclosure, I did say they were less likely to walk and had more invested in remaining a part of their communities both of which have proven true.[/quote]
In the end, with enough time, the “less likely” part will become “just as likely”
My bet is that the guys who walk away the earliest will reap the most benefits. Those who held out longer will look back with some regret.
March 6, 2012 at 10:51 AM #739368Participant[quote=sdrealtor]I never said they wouldnt walk away. In full disclosure, I did say they were less likely to walk and had more invested in remaining a part of their communities both of which have proven true. Again things are not so B&W as people around here would have them particularly those of very analytical minds. There is a ton of nuance in the world.
I think I made it pretty clear that those folks didnt have to walk away. They had choices, they weighed the pros vs cons and made the best decisions they could going forward.[/quote]
sdr, why don’t you describe for us some of the typical “nuances” some or all of your “well-employed” SS clients utilized for reasons for letting their (supposedly good) credit go to sh!t and strategically selling short or “walking away.”
It seems as though every property owner has the same problem (unless owning in a very “old money” area such as MH or parts of PL or LJ). The Piggs want to be able to “analyze” these “nuances” to decide for themselves whether your client’s “nuances” are any more legitimate or “worthy” than the rest of our “nuances.”
March 6, 2012 at 11:01 AM #739370Guest[quote=bearishgurl]The Piggs want to be able to “analyze” these “nuances” to decide for themselves whether your client’s “nuances” are any more legitimate or “worthy” than the rest of our “nuances.”[/quote]
Nah, we don’t.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.