Let Home Prices Fall

[Aecetia]

The point about artificially propping up the market is an excellent one! This is Darwinian economics at work.

“The understandable impulse to minimize foreclosures should not be a pretext to prop up the housing market by rescuing too many strapped homeowners. Though cruel, foreclosures and falling home values have the virtue of bringing prices to a level where housing can escape its present stagnation. Helping today’s homeowners makes little sense if it penalizes tomorrow’s homeowners. An unstoppable free fall of prices seems unlikely. Slumping home construction and sales have left much pent-up demand. What will release that demand are affordable prices.”

[jpinpb]

If people have a lot of money invested in their property, I can see the reluctance to lower their price. But most people bought at peak w/zero down. Maybe they can’t reduce b/c of banks/what they owe. But when the bank is left holding the bag, there should be no emotions involved. It’s business. Yet the banks won’t reduce. I

I see homes that are trust/estate sales or bought back in 1980’s or 90’s that won’t reduce. If they foolishly have taken out equity and maxed out, then it’s up to the bank, but otherwise, their greed needs a reality check and if they want to sell, then unless they are blind and deaf, I have trouble understanding the resistance to lowering. They are making a profit. The longer they hold on, their profit continues to dwindle.

[jpinpb]

If people have a lot of money invested in their property, I can see the reluctance to lower their price. But most people bought at peak w/zero down. Maybe they can’t reduce b/c of banks/what they owe. But when the bank is left holding the bag, there should be no emotions involved. It’s business. Yet the banks won’t reduce. I

I see homes that are trust/estate sales or bought back in 1980’s or 90’s that won’t reduce. If they foolishly have taken out equity and maxed out, then it’s up to the bank, but otherwise, their greed needs a reality check and if they want to sell, then unless they are blind and deaf, I have trouble understanding the resistance to lowering. They are making a profit. The longer they hold on, their profit continues to dwindle.

[jpinpb]

If people have a lot of money invested in their property, I can see the reluctance to lower their price. But most people bought at peak w/zero down. Maybe they can’t reduce b/c of banks/what they owe. But when the bank is left holding the bag, there should be no emotions involved. It’s business. Yet the banks won’t reduce. I

I see homes that are trust/estate sales or bought back in 1980’s or 90’s that won’t reduce. If they foolishly have taken out equity and maxed out, then it’s up to the bank, but otherwise, their greed needs a reality check and if they want to sell, then unless they are blind and deaf, I have trouble understanding the resistance to lowering. They are making a profit. The longer they hold on, their profit continues to dwindle.

[jpinpb]

If people have a lot of money invested in their property, I can see the reluctance to lower their price. But most people bought at peak w/zero down. Maybe they can’t reduce b/c of banks/what they owe. But when the bank is left holding the bag, there should be no emotions involved. It’s business. Yet the banks won’t reduce. I

I see homes that are trust/estate sales or bought back in 1980’s or 90’s that won’t reduce. If they foolishly have taken out equity and maxed out, then it’s up to the bank, but otherwise, their greed needs a reality check and if they want to sell, then unless they are blind and deaf, I have trouble understanding the resistance to lowering. They are making a profit. The longer they hold on, their profit continues to dwindle.

[jpinpb]

If people have a lot of money invested in their property, I can see the reluctance to lower their price. But most people bought at peak w/zero down. Maybe they can’t reduce b/c of banks/what they owe. But when the bank is left holding the bag, there should be no emotions involved. It’s business. Yet the banks won’t reduce. I

I see homes that are trust/estate sales or bought back in 1980’s or 90’s that won’t reduce. If they foolishly have taken out equity and maxed out, then it’s up to the bank, but otherwise, their greed needs a reality check and if they want to sell, then unless they are blind and deaf, I have trouble understanding the resistance to lowering. They are making a profit. The longer they hold on, their profit continues to dwindle.

[cr]

The irony is some people will refuse to drop their prices by 20% today, but in 3 months will drop it by 5%, then 10% a month later, then another 10% the month after that.

Had they cut it 20% today it’d likely sell for more than 6 months from now.

Then again, I have no problem with them holding out for something they likely won’t get.

[cr]

The irony is some people will refuse to drop their prices by 20% today, but in 3 months will drop it by 5%, then 10% a month later, then another 10% the month after that.

Had they cut it 20% today it’d likely sell for more than 6 months from now.

Then again, I have no problem with them holding out for something they likely won’t get.

[cr]

The irony is some people will refuse to drop their prices by 20% today, but in 3 months will drop it by 5%, then 10% a month later, then another 10% the month after that.

Had they cut it 20% today it’d likely sell for more than 6 months from now.

Then again, I have no problem with them holding out for something they likely won’t get.

[cr]

The irony is some people will refuse to drop their prices by 20% today, but in 3 months will drop it by 5%, then 10% a month later, then another 10% the month after that.

Had they cut it 20% today it’d likely sell for more than 6 months from now.

Then again, I have no problem with them holding out for something they likely won’t get.

[cr]

The irony is some people will refuse to drop their prices by 20% today, but in 3 months will drop it by 5%, then 10% a month later, then another 10% the month after that.

Had they cut it 20% today it’d likely sell for more than 6 months from now.

Then again, I have no problem with them holding out for something they likely won’t get.

[Aecetia]

From the New York Times today:
March 6, 2008
Mortgage Defaults Reach a New High
By VIKAS BAJAJ
WASHINGTON — Defaults on home mortgages touched another all-time high at the end of the last year as foreclosures surged on adjustable-rate mortgages, an industry group reported on Thursday.

The latest data is expected to put further pressure on policy makers and the mortgage industry to move faster to contain losses and help more homeowners. In recent days, regulators and lawmakers have begun suggesting that the federal government might need to take a more interventionist role in the mortgage business.

The Mortgage Bankers Association reported Thursday that the number of loans past due or in foreclosure jumped to 7.9 percent, from 7.3 percent at the end of September and 6.1 percent in December 2006. Before the third quarter, the rate had never risen past 7 percent since the survey began in 1979.

The report helped drive down the stock and credit markets on Thursday. The Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index fell 1.2 percent and the Dow Jones industrial average fell about 130 points, or 1.1 percent.

Much of the increase in delinquencies and foreclosures came from a handful of states, particularly California and Florida. Those two states account for about 21 percent of all mortgages but had 30 percent of the new foreclosures started in the quarter. Nevada, Arizona, Michigan and Ohio also had high default rates.

[Aecetia]

From the New York Times today:
March 6, 2008
Mortgage Defaults Reach a New High
By VIKAS BAJAJ
WASHINGTON — Defaults on home mortgages touched another all-time high at the end of the last year as foreclosures surged on adjustable-rate mortgages, an industry group reported on Thursday.

The latest data is expected to put further pressure on policy makers and the mortgage industry to move faster to contain losses and help more homeowners. In recent days, regulators and lawmakers have begun suggesting that the federal government might need to take a more interventionist role in the mortgage business.

The Mortgage Bankers Association reported Thursday that the number of loans past due or in foreclosure jumped to 7.9 percent, from 7.3 percent at the end of September and 6.1 percent in December 2006. Before the third quarter, the rate had never risen past 7 percent since the survey began in 1979.

The report helped drive down the stock and credit markets on Thursday. The Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index fell 1.2 percent and the Dow Jones industrial average fell about 130 points, or 1.1 percent.

Much of the increase in delinquencies and foreclosures came from a handful of states, particularly California and Florida. Those two states account for about 21 percent of all mortgages but had 30 percent of the new foreclosures started in the quarter. Nevada, Arizona, Michigan and Ohio also had high default rates.

[Aecetia]

From the New York Times today:
March 6, 2008
Mortgage Defaults Reach a New High
By VIKAS BAJAJ
WASHINGTON — Defaults on home mortgages touched another all-time high at the end of the last year as foreclosures surged on adjustable-rate mortgages, an industry group reported on Thursday.

The latest data is expected to put further pressure on policy makers and the mortgage industry to move faster to contain losses and help more homeowners. In recent days, regulators and lawmakers have begun suggesting that the federal government might need to take a more interventionist role in the mortgage business.

The Mortgage Bankers Association reported Thursday that the number of loans past due or in foreclosure jumped to 7.9 percent, from 7.3 percent at the end of September and 6.1 percent in December 2006. Before the third quarter, the rate had never risen past 7 percent since the survey began in 1979.

The report helped drive down the stock and credit markets on Thursday. The Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index fell 1.2 percent and the Dow Jones industrial average fell about 130 points, or 1.1 percent.

Much of the increase in delinquencies and foreclosures came from a handful of states, particularly California and Florida. Those two states account for about 21 percent of all mortgages but had 30 percent of the new foreclosures started in the quarter. Nevada, Arizona, Michigan and Ohio also had high default rates.

[Aecetia]

From the New York Times today:
March 6, 2008
Mortgage Defaults Reach a New High
By VIKAS BAJAJ
WASHINGTON — Defaults on home mortgages touched another all-time high at the end of the last year as foreclosures surged on adjustable-rate mortgages, an industry group reported on Thursday.

The latest data is expected to put further pressure on policy makers and the mortgage industry to move faster to contain losses and help more homeowners. In recent days, regulators and lawmakers have begun suggesting that the federal government might need to take a more interventionist role in the mortgage business.

The Mortgage Bankers Association reported Thursday that the number of loans past due or in foreclosure jumped to 7.9 percent, from 7.3 percent at the end of September and 6.1 percent in December 2006. Before the third quarter, the rate had never risen past 7 percent since the survey began in 1979.

The report helped drive down the stock and credit markets on Thursday. The Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index fell 1.2 percent and the Dow Jones industrial average fell about 130 points, or 1.1 percent.

Much of the increase in delinquencies and foreclosures came from a handful of states, particularly California and Florida. Those two states account for about 21 percent of all mortgages but had 30 percent of the new foreclosures started in the quarter. Nevada, Arizona, Michigan and Ohio also had high default rates.

[Author]

Posts