Increasing numbers of Americans are simply walking away from their houses

[cr]

Full Reuters article here. Some of the interesting points:

…one in five borrowers owing more on their loan than the house will fetch

Mark Zandi of Moody’s Economy.com estimates that 10.6 million homeowners will have zero or negative equity by the end of June, or 21% of first mortgage holders.

The impact of a new wave of defaults will…mean a wave of new properties hitting the real estate market, driving prices lower still, as banks seize and seek to sell the houses homeowners have fled.

Zandi has estimated that every foreclosure on a neighbourhood block reduces the value of all homes on that block by almost 1.5 percent.

Data from real estate firm RealtyTrac not only shows a rapid rise in overall foreclosures, but also suggests a rising number of walk aways.

Home foreclosure filings surged 57 percent in the 12 months to March and bank repossessions soared 129 percent from a year ago, according to RealtyTrac.
_________________________________________________

If it takes up to 6 months to go from default to REO on the market, arguably slower these days due to volume, many of these homes won’t hit the market until 2009. Doesn’t bode well for those calling that the bottom when we have enough inventory today to get us there.

[Bugs]

In 2001 nobody could have guessed the heights to which the market would eventually climb. I don’t think it’s an exagerration to say that in 2005 there were but few who could guess the depths to which this market could fall.

[Bugs]

In 2001 nobody could have guessed the heights to which the market would eventually climb. I don’t think it’s an exagerration to say that in 2005 there were but few who could guess the depths to which this market could fall.

[Bugs]

In 2001 nobody could have guessed the heights to which the market would eventually climb. I don’t think it’s an exagerration to say that in 2005 there were but few who could guess the depths to which this market could fall.

[Bugs]

In 2001 nobody could have guessed the heights to which the market would eventually climb. I don’t think it’s an exagerration to say that in 2005 there were but few who could guess the depths to which this market could fall.

[Bugs]

In 2001 nobody could have guessed the heights to which the market would eventually climb. I don’t think it’s an exagerration to say that in 2005 there were but few who could guess the depths to which this market could fall.

[equalizer]

Zandi has been on fire for a while now. It’s too bad that Moody’s wasn’t warned about this a few years ago so they could have marked all MBS to double junk. Oh wait, Zandi’s employer is owned by Moody’s, except he works for geek dept, while the the rating agency is run by their fraud dept. Why does Zandi still have a job, wouldn’t be surprised if he is arrested for fraud.

The 1.5% drop is very conservative, maybe its per month.

[equalizer]

Zandi has been on fire for a while now. It’s too bad that Moody’s wasn’t warned about this a few years ago so they could have marked all MBS to double junk. Oh wait, Zandi’s employer is owned by Moody’s, except he works for geek dept, while the the rating agency is run by their fraud dept. Why does Zandi still have a job, wouldn’t be surprised if he is arrested for fraud.

The 1.5% drop is very conservative, maybe its per month.

[equalizer]

Zandi has been on fire for a while now. It’s too bad that Moody’s wasn’t warned about this a few years ago so they could have marked all MBS to double junk. Oh wait, Zandi’s employer is owned by Moody’s, except he works for geek dept, while the the rating agency is run by their fraud dept. Why does Zandi still have a job, wouldn’t be surprised if he is arrested for fraud.

The 1.5% drop is very conservative, maybe its per month.

[equalizer]

Zandi has been on fire for a while now. It’s too bad that Moody’s wasn’t warned about this a few years ago so they could have marked all MBS to double junk. Oh wait, Zandi’s employer is owned by Moody’s, except he works for geek dept, while the the rating agency is run by their fraud dept. Why does Zandi still have a job, wouldn’t be surprised if he is arrested for fraud.

The 1.5% drop is very conservative, maybe its per month.

[equalizer]

Zandi has been on fire for a while now. It’s too bad that Moody’s wasn’t warned about this a few years ago so they could have marked all MBS to double junk. Oh wait, Zandi’s employer is owned by Moody’s, except he works for geek dept, while the the rating agency is run by their fraud dept. Why does Zandi still have a job, wouldn’t be surprised if he is arrested for fraud.

The 1.5% drop is very conservative, maybe its per month.

[cr]

I think he means a flat 1.5% the moment a home in the area goes into foreclosure.

Here’s a question though: would you prefer people walk on their mortgages or the government bail them out?

Both have negative moral implications. People walking out will cause banks to make up the loss on new loans, while a bailout will tend to keep prices inflated.

Given that I have to say I’d rather see people walk. As banks raise rates to cover their losses, it should drive down demand even more.

[cr]

I think he means a flat 1.5% the moment a home in the area goes into foreclosure.

Here’s a question though: would you prefer people walk on their mortgages or the government bail them out?

Both have negative moral implications. People walking out will cause banks to make up the loss on new loans, while a bailout will tend to keep prices inflated.

Given that I have to say I’d rather see people walk. As banks raise rates to cover their losses, it should drive down demand even more.

[cr]

I think he means a flat 1.5% the moment a home in the area goes into foreclosure.

Here’s a question though: would you prefer people walk on their mortgages or the government bail them out?

Both have negative moral implications. People walking out will cause banks to make up the loss on new loans, while a bailout will tend to keep prices inflated.

Given that I have to say I’d rather see people walk. As banks raise rates to cover their losses, it should drive down demand even more.

[cr]

I think he means a flat 1.5% the moment a home in the area goes into foreclosure.

Here’s a question though: would you prefer people walk on their mortgages or the government bail them out?

Both have negative moral implications. People walking out will cause banks to make up the loss on new loans, while a bailout will tend to keep prices inflated.

Given that I have to say I’d rather see people walk. As banks raise rates to cover their losses, it should drive down demand even more.

[Author]

Posts