If you are considering a short sale

[patientlywaiting]

Good list of items to consider, SD Realtor.

How about some items to consider for homeowners who have assets, are not undergoing hardship but who want out of their real estate because they just don’t feel like “throwing away money” anymore?

I know that this makes some people’s blood boil, but as real estate “analyts” we should consider all realistic options.

[patientrenter]

Thanks SDR and Deal Hunter.

Two comments stood out for me:

“I have found that even with recourse loans on some short sales, people are getting the deficiencies forgiven.”

“We’ve done this in Las Vegas with 3 short sales since November of 2007. The homeowner never went late, preserved their credit and successfully sold their homes on short sale.”

I read this, and thought about the whole debate over moral hazard and the economic sense behind allowing home purchases with less than, say, 30% of the borrower’s own money at risk.

I don’t think there are many, if any, Piggingtons who have savings who would volunteer to lend a significant portion of those savings to borrowers if those borrowers get to keep most of the winnings if home prices go up, and hand back most of the losses if home prices go down. Especially not if there is forgiveness of debt on recourse loans, and only minor or short-term credit damage for the borrowers when they walk away.

Almost all the money put at risk in buying homes in the last few motnhs has been from taxpayers. Adding FHLB lending, FHA guarantees, and implicit FNMA and Freddie Mac guarantees, virtually all the risk in new home loan lending is now borne by taxpayers. With moral hazard reaching the levels described by SDR and Deal Hunter, it is hard to see savvy private investors replacing the govt role for the next generation or two. It seems that taxpayers have been drafted to be the sole supporter of inflated home prices for the foreseeable future.

Has any mainstream economist with broad credibility done a good job of analyzing the real economic damage of such a massive move away from the free enterprise system? Right now, everyone in a position of authority seems to support the notion that it’s better to feed the long-term hazard to starve the short-term recession beast. Only a few peripheral “nut-jobs” say otherwise.

Patient renter in OC

[patientrenter]

Thanks SDR and Deal Hunter.

Two comments stood out for me:

“I have found that even with recourse loans on some short sales, people are getting the deficiencies forgiven.”

“We’ve done this in Las Vegas with 3 short sales since November of 2007. The homeowner never went late, preserved their credit and successfully sold their homes on short sale.”

I read this, and thought about the whole debate over moral hazard and the economic sense behind allowing home purchases with less than, say, 30% of the borrower’s own money at risk.

I don’t think there are many, if any, Piggingtons who have savings who would volunteer to lend a significant portion of those savings to borrowers if those borrowers get to keep most of the winnings if home prices go up, and hand back most of the losses if home prices go down. Especially not if there is forgiveness of debt on recourse loans, and only minor or short-term credit damage for the borrowers when they walk away.

Almost all the money put at risk in buying homes in the last few motnhs has been from taxpayers. Adding FHLB lending, FHA guarantees, and implicit FNMA and Freddie Mac guarantees, virtually all the risk in new home loan lending is now borne by taxpayers. With moral hazard reaching the levels described by SDR and Deal Hunter, it is hard to see savvy private investors replacing the govt role for the next generation or two. It seems that taxpayers have been drafted to be the sole supporter of inflated home prices for the foreseeable future.

Has any mainstream economist with broad credibility done a good job of analyzing the real economic damage of such a massive move away from the free enterprise system? Right now, everyone in a position of authority seems to support the notion that it’s better to feed the long-term hazard to starve the short-term recession beast. Only a few peripheral “nut-jobs” say otherwise.

Patient renter in OC

[patientrenter]

Thanks SDR and Deal Hunter.

Two comments stood out for me:

“I have found that even with recourse loans on some short sales, people are getting the deficiencies forgiven.”

“We’ve done this in Las Vegas with 3 short sales since November of 2007. The homeowner never went late, preserved their credit and successfully sold their homes on short sale.”

I read this, and thought about the whole debate over moral hazard and the economic sense behind allowing home purchases with less than, say, 30% of the borrower’s own money at risk.

I don’t think there are many, if any, Piggingtons who have savings who would volunteer to lend a significant portion of those savings to borrowers if those borrowers get to keep most of the winnings if home prices go up, and hand back most of the losses if home prices go down. Especially not if there is forgiveness of debt on recourse loans, and only minor or short-term credit damage for the borrowers when they walk away.

Almost all the money put at risk in buying homes in the last few motnhs has been from taxpayers. Adding FHLB lending, FHA guarantees, and implicit FNMA and Freddie Mac guarantees, virtually all the risk in new home loan lending is now borne by taxpayers. With moral hazard reaching the levels described by SDR and Deal Hunter, it is hard to see savvy private investors replacing the govt role for the next generation or two. It seems that taxpayers have been drafted to be the sole supporter of inflated home prices for the foreseeable future.

Has any mainstream economist with broad credibility done a good job of analyzing the real economic damage of such a massive move away from the free enterprise system? Right now, everyone in a position of authority seems to support the notion that it’s better to feed the long-term hazard to starve the short-term recession beast. Only a few peripheral “nut-jobs” say otherwise.

Patient renter in OC

[patientrenter]

Thanks SDR and Deal Hunter.

Two comments stood out for me:

“I have found that even with recourse loans on some short sales, people are getting the deficiencies forgiven.”

“We’ve done this in Las Vegas with 3 short sales since November of 2007. The homeowner never went late, preserved their credit and successfully sold their homes on short sale.”

I read this, and thought about the whole debate over moral hazard and the economic sense behind allowing home purchases with less than, say, 30% of the borrower’s own money at risk.

I don’t think there are many, if any, Piggingtons who have savings who would volunteer to lend a significant portion of those savings to borrowers if those borrowers get to keep most of the winnings if home prices go up, and hand back most of the losses if home prices go down. Especially not if there is forgiveness of debt on recourse loans, and only minor or short-term credit damage for the borrowers when they walk away.

Almost all the money put at risk in buying homes in the last few motnhs has been from taxpayers. Adding FHLB lending, FHA guarantees, and implicit FNMA and Freddie Mac guarantees, virtually all the risk in new home loan lending is now borne by taxpayers. With moral hazard reaching the levels described by SDR and Deal Hunter, it is hard to see savvy private investors replacing the govt role for the next generation or two. It seems that taxpayers have been drafted to be the sole supporter of inflated home prices for the foreseeable future.

Has any mainstream economist with broad credibility done a good job of analyzing the real economic damage of such a massive move away from the free enterprise system? Right now, everyone in a position of authority seems to support the notion that it’s better to feed the long-term hazard to starve the short-term recession beast. Only a few peripheral “nut-jobs” say otherwise.

Patient renter in OC

[patientrenter]

Thanks SDR and Deal Hunter.

Two comments stood out for me:

“I have found that even with recourse loans on some short sales, people are getting the deficiencies forgiven.”

“We’ve done this in Las Vegas with 3 short sales since November of 2007. The homeowner never went late, preserved their credit and successfully sold their homes on short sale.”

I read this, and thought about the whole debate over moral hazard and the economic sense behind allowing home purchases with less than, say, 30% of the borrower’s own money at risk.

I don’t think there are many, if any, Piggingtons who have savings who would volunteer to lend a significant portion of those savings to borrowers if those borrowers get to keep most of the winnings if home prices go up, and hand back most of the losses if home prices go down. Especially not if there is forgiveness of debt on recourse loans, and only minor or short-term credit damage for the borrowers when they walk away.

Almost all the money put at risk in buying homes in the last few motnhs has been from taxpayers. Adding FHLB lending, FHA guarantees, and implicit FNMA and Freddie Mac guarantees, virtually all the risk in new home loan lending is now borne by taxpayers. With moral hazard reaching the levels described by SDR and Deal Hunter, it is hard to see savvy private investors replacing the govt role for the next generation or two. It seems that taxpayers have been drafted to be the sole supporter of inflated home prices for the foreseeable future.

Has any mainstream economist with broad credibility done a good job of analyzing the real economic damage of such a massive move away from the free enterprise system? Right now, everyone in a position of authority seems to support the notion that it’s better to feed the long-term hazard to starve the short-term recession beast. Only a few peripheral “nut-jobs” say otherwise.

Patient renter in OC

[SD Realtor]

PW and PR, good posts.

PW the current short sale I have listed right now tried to convince the lender to go for a deed in lieu of foreclosure but the lender would not budge. They said that we could attempt to sell it short or they would just take the home at trustee sale. This WAS indeed a hardship case as well! I am working with another client at the moment and they actually have a hardship case as well. They has authorized me to talk to the lender and I have been going round and round with them. This home is not yet listed either and the owners simply do want to just mail the keys in but the lender is being uncooperative.

As far as the advice to people who want to simply mail it in so to speak. I guess I don’t have any strong feelings. I would have to agree that yeah simply paying out money you cannot afford to pay is something that one should not do. Still I cannot help but to want to grab these people by the collar and shake em around a bit and ask why the heck they bought something they couldn’t afford in the first place? If it is a true hardship where something did happen, at least there is an excuse there. Anyways walking away is a very realistic option and yes I have recommended it to many people. It is a very realistic option and it dovetails nicely in the the post PR made.

Essentially we as taxpayers have/will take on the burden of these shortfalls. To me this has to be one of the changes in the housing market. I cannot stand these non recourse loans. Build the risk into the purchase and let the buyer pay that risk. If it means 20% down, or if it means 30% down then so be it.

If we make it a major hurdle to purchase a home, I don’t think we would ever get close to creating a bubble like the one we created again.

Right now it is like we keep squeezing these bubbles into different areas. The stock bubble got squeezed into real estate, now real estate is getting squeezed into the tax bill… Seems to me sometime someday there will be no places left to squeeze to.

[SD Realtor]

PW and PR, good posts.

PW the current short sale I have listed right now tried to convince the lender to go for a deed in lieu of foreclosure but the lender would not budge. They said that we could attempt to sell it short or they would just take the home at trustee sale. This WAS indeed a hardship case as well! I am working with another client at the moment and they actually have a hardship case as well. They has authorized me to talk to the lender and I have been going round and round with them. This home is not yet listed either and the owners simply do want to just mail the keys in but the lender is being uncooperative.

As far as the advice to people who want to simply mail it in so to speak. I guess I don’t have any strong feelings. I would have to agree that yeah simply paying out money you cannot afford to pay is something that one should not do. Still I cannot help but to want to grab these people by the collar and shake em around a bit and ask why the heck they bought something they couldn’t afford in the first place? If it is a true hardship where something did happen, at least there is an excuse there. Anyways walking away is a very realistic option and yes I have recommended it to many people. It is a very realistic option and it dovetails nicely in the the post PR made.

Essentially we as taxpayers have/will take on the burden of these shortfalls. To me this has to be one of the changes in the housing market. I cannot stand these non recourse loans. Build the risk into the purchase and let the buyer pay that risk. If it means 20% down, or if it means 30% down then so be it.

If we make it a major hurdle to purchase a home, I don’t think we would ever get close to creating a bubble like the one we created again.

Right now it is like we keep squeezing these bubbles into different areas. The stock bubble got squeezed into real estate, now real estate is getting squeezed into the tax bill… Seems to me sometime someday there will be no places left to squeeze to.

[SD Realtor]

PW and PR, good posts.

PW the current short sale I have listed right now tried to convince the lender to go for a deed in lieu of foreclosure but the lender would not budge. They said that we could attempt to sell it short or they would just take the home at trustee sale. This WAS indeed a hardship case as well! I am working with another client at the moment and they actually have a hardship case as well. They has authorized me to talk to the lender and I have been going round and round with them. This home is not yet listed either and the owners simply do want to just mail the keys in but the lender is being uncooperative.

As far as the advice to people who want to simply mail it in so to speak. I guess I don’t have any strong feelings. I would have to agree that yeah simply paying out money you cannot afford to pay is something that one should not do. Still I cannot help but to want to grab these people by the collar and shake em around a bit and ask why the heck they bought something they couldn’t afford in the first place? If it is a true hardship where something did happen, at least there is an excuse there. Anyways walking away is a very realistic option and yes I have recommended it to many people. It is a very realistic option and it dovetails nicely in the the post PR made.

Essentially we as taxpayers have/will take on the burden of these shortfalls. To me this has to be one of the changes in the housing market. I cannot stand these non recourse loans. Build the risk into the purchase and let the buyer pay that risk. If it means 20% down, or if it means 30% down then so be it.

If we make it a major hurdle to purchase a home, I don’t think we would ever get close to creating a bubble like the one we created again.

Right now it is like we keep squeezing these bubbles into different areas. The stock bubble got squeezed into real estate, now real estate is getting squeezed into the tax bill… Seems to me sometime someday there will be no places left to squeeze to.

[SD Realtor]

PW and PR, good posts.

PW the current short sale I have listed right now tried to convince the lender to go for a deed in lieu of foreclosure but the lender would not budge. They said that we could attempt to sell it short or they would just take the home at trustee sale. This WAS indeed a hardship case as well! I am working with another client at the moment and they actually have a hardship case as well. They has authorized me to talk to the lender and I have been going round and round with them. This home is not yet listed either and the owners simply do want to just mail the keys in but the lender is being uncooperative.

As far as the advice to people who want to simply mail it in so to speak. I guess I don’t have any strong feelings. I would have to agree that yeah simply paying out money you cannot afford to pay is something that one should not do. Still I cannot help but to want to grab these people by the collar and shake em around a bit and ask why the heck they bought something they couldn’t afford in the first place? If it is a true hardship where something did happen, at least there is an excuse there. Anyways walking away is a very realistic option and yes I have recommended it to many people. It is a very realistic option and it dovetails nicely in the the post PR made.

Essentially we as taxpayers have/will take on the burden of these shortfalls. To me this has to be one of the changes in the housing market. I cannot stand these non recourse loans. Build the risk into the purchase and let the buyer pay that risk. If it means 20% down, or if it means 30% down then so be it.

If we make it a major hurdle to purchase a home, I don’t think we would ever get close to creating a bubble like the one we created again.

Right now it is like we keep squeezing these bubbles into different areas. The stock bubble got squeezed into real estate, now real estate is getting squeezed into the tax bill… Seems to me sometime someday there will be no places left to squeeze to.

[SD Realtor]

PW and PR, good posts.

PW the current short sale I have listed right now tried to convince the lender to go for a deed in lieu of foreclosure but the lender would not budge. They said that we could attempt to sell it short or they would just take the home at trustee sale. This WAS indeed a hardship case as well! I am working with another client at the moment and they actually have a hardship case as well. They has authorized me to talk to the lender and I have been going round and round with them. This home is not yet listed either and the owners simply do want to just mail the keys in but the lender is being uncooperative.

As far as the advice to people who want to simply mail it in so to speak. I guess I don’t have any strong feelings. I would have to agree that yeah simply paying out money you cannot afford to pay is something that one should not do. Still I cannot help but to want to grab these people by the collar and shake em around a bit and ask why the heck they bought something they couldn’t afford in the first place? If it is a true hardship where something did happen, at least there is an excuse there. Anyways walking away is a very realistic option and yes I have recommended it to many people. It is a very realistic option and it dovetails nicely in the the post PR made.

Essentially we as taxpayers have/will take on the burden of these shortfalls. To me this has to be one of the changes in the housing market. I cannot stand these non recourse loans. Build the risk into the purchase and let the buyer pay that risk. If it means 20% down, or if it means 30% down then so be it.

If we make it a major hurdle to purchase a home, I don’t think we would ever get close to creating a bubble like the one we created again.

Right now it is like we keep squeezing these bubbles into different areas. The stock bubble got squeezed into real estate, now real estate is getting squeezed into the tax bill… Seems to me sometime someday there will be no places left to squeeze to.

[4plexowner]

“Only a few peripheral “nut-jobs” say otherwise.”

Visionaries are always considered whacko nut-jobs until history proves them correct

[4plexowner]

“Only a few peripheral “nut-jobs” say otherwise.”

Visionaries are always considered whacko nut-jobs until history proves them correct

[4plexowner]

“Only a few peripheral “nut-jobs” say otherwise.”

Visionaries are always considered whacko nut-jobs until history proves them correct

[4plexowner]

“Only a few peripheral “nut-jobs” say otherwise.”

Visionaries are always considered whacko nut-jobs until history proves them correct

[Author]

Posts