November SD County NOD/Foreclosure Stats

[davelj]

I just noticed that for the month of November in SD County NODs were down about 25% and foreclosures down about a third from the previous month. This is the first large month-to-month retracement in these stats for over two years. Is this a result of (a) noise, (b) servicers reluctant to foreclose and getting serious about modifying loans, or (c) something I’m not aware of? Maybe this was already discussed and I missed it…

[4plexowner]

perhaps another way to look at your question is, “what does a mortgage servicer accomplish today by serving an NOD or going through with a foreclosure?”

forcing the FB out of the house results in the mortgage servicer having to realize a loss – as long as the FB remains in the house, even if they AREN’T making their payments, the servicer can pretend that the mortgage is still an asset

houses aren’t selling in today’s market (“done like dinner” is my favorite recent description of the local market) so why would a mortgage servicer want to take possession of any more houses than they absolutely had to?

better to wait and see what the numerous bailouts might bring before hurrying to foreclose on a bunch of FBs

[4plexowner]

perhaps another way to look at your question is, “what does a mortgage servicer accomplish today by serving an NOD or going through with a foreclosure?”

forcing the FB out of the house results in the mortgage servicer having to realize a loss – as long as the FB remains in the house, even if they AREN’T making their payments, the servicer can pretend that the mortgage is still an asset

houses aren’t selling in today’s market (“done like dinner” is my favorite recent description of the local market) so why would a mortgage servicer want to take possession of any more houses than they absolutely had to?

better to wait and see what the numerous bailouts might bring before hurrying to foreclose on a bunch of FBs

[4plexowner]

perhaps another way to look at your question is, “what does a mortgage servicer accomplish today by serving an NOD or going through with a foreclosure?”

forcing the FB out of the house results in the mortgage servicer having to realize a loss – as long as the FB remains in the house, even if they AREN’T making their payments, the servicer can pretend that the mortgage is still an asset

houses aren’t selling in today’s market (“done like dinner” is my favorite recent description of the local market) so why would a mortgage servicer want to take possession of any more houses than they absolutely had to?

better to wait and see what the numerous bailouts might bring before hurrying to foreclose on a bunch of FBs

[4plexowner]

perhaps another way to look at your question is, “what does a mortgage servicer accomplish today by serving an NOD or going through with a foreclosure?”

forcing the FB out of the house results in the mortgage servicer having to realize a loss – as long as the FB remains in the house, even if they AREN’T making their payments, the servicer can pretend that the mortgage is still an asset

houses aren’t selling in today’s market (“done like dinner” is my favorite recent description of the local market) so why would a mortgage servicer want to take possession of any more houses than they absolutely had to?

better to wait and see what the numerous bailouts might bring before hurrying to foreclose on a bunch of FBs

[4plexowner]

perhaps another way to look at your question is, “what does a mortgage servicer accomplish today by serving an NOD or going through with a foreclosure?”

forcing the FB out of the house results in the mortgage servicer having to realize a loss – as long as the FB remains in the house, even if they AREN’T making their payments, the servicer can pretend that the mortgage is still an asset

houses aren’t selling in today’s market (“done like dinner” is my favorite recent description of the local market) so why would a mortgage servicer want to take possession of any more houses than they absolutely had to?

better to wait and see what the numerous bailouts might bring before hurrying to foreclose on a bunch of FBs

[davelj]

While I don’t disagree with your conclusion (which is, essentially, “b” from my original post) I don’t think your thought process is correct. The servicer and the ultimate “owner” of the mortgage are rarely the same entity. The only thing the servicer is really trying to accomplish is the most cost effective manner of protecting the value of the underlying mortgage for its ultimate owner, whether that’s a bank, thrift or mortgage-backed security holder. In other words, the servicer has no economic incentive to “pretend that the mortgage is still an asset” (as you put it). I think the only thing servicers are concerned with these days is doing whatever they have to do – whether it’s foreclosing or modifying the loan – to avoid getting sued by the true note holders. Any other thoughts?

[davelj]

While I don’t disagree with your conclusion (which is, essentially, “b” from my original post) I don’t think your thought process is correct. The servicer and the ultimate “owner” of the mortgage are rarely the same entity. The only thing the servicer is really trying to accomplish is the most cost effective manner of protecting the value of the underlying mortgage for its ultimate owner, whether that’s a bank, thrift or mortgage-backed security holder. In other words, the servicer has no economic incentive to “pretend that the mortgage is still an asset” (as you put it). I think the only thing servicers are concerned with these days is doing whatever they have to do – whether it’s foreclosing or modifying the loan – to avoid getting sued by the true note holders. Any other thoughts?

[davelj]

While I don’t disagree with your conclusion (which is, essentially, “b” from my original post) I don’t think your thought process is correct. The servicer and the ultimate “owner” of the mortgage are rarely the same entity. The only thing the servicer is really trying to accomplish is the most cost effective manner of protecting the value of the underlying mortgage for its ultimate owner, whether that’s a bank, thrift or mortgage-backed security holder. In other words, the servicer has no economic incentive to “pretend that the mortgage is still an asset” (as you put it). I think the only thing servicers are concerned with these days is doing whatever they have to do – whether it’s foreclosing or modifying the loan – to avoid getting sued by the true note holders. Any other thoughts?

[davelj]

While I don’t disagree with your conclusion (which is, essentially, “b” from my original post) I don’t think your thought process is correct. The servicer and the ultimate “owner” of the mortgage are rarely the same entity. The only thing the servicer is really trying to accomplish is the most cost effective manner of protecting the value of the underlying mortgage for its ultimate owner, whether that’s a bank, thrift or mortgage-backed security holder. In other words, the servicer has no economic incentive to “pretend that the mortgage is still an asset” (as you put it). I think the only thing servicers are concerned with these days is doing whatever they have to do – whether it’s foreclosing or modifying the loan – to avoid getting sued by the true note holders. Any other thoughts?

[davelj]

While I don’t disagree with your conclusion (which is, essentially, “b” from my original post) I don’t think your thought process is correct. The servicer and the ultimate “owner” of the mortgage are rarely the same entity. The only thing the servicer is really trying to accomplish is the most cost effective manner of protecting the value of the underlying mortgage for its ultimate owner, whether that’s a bank, thrift or mortgage-backed security holder. In other words, the servicer has no economic incentive to “pretend that the mortgage is still an asset” (as you put it). I think the only thing servicers are concerned with these days is doing whatever they have to do – whether it’s foreclosing or modifying the loan – to avoid getting sued by the true note holders. Any other thoughts?

[golfproz]

It’s possible that all the bail out talk gave people a spark of hope. This may have enticed them to make a payment in the hopes that the bail out would save them. I’ve also read it’s not good fromn a PR standpoint to kick people out of their homes over the holidays.

[golfproz]

It’s possible that all the bail out talk gave people a spark of hope. This may have enticed them to make a payment in the hopes that the bail out would save them. I’ve also read it’s not good fromn a PR standpoint to kick people out of their homes over the holidays.

[golfproz]

It’s possible that all the bail out talk gave people a spark of hope. This may have enticed them to make a payment in the hopes that the bail out would save them. I’ve also read it’s not good fromn a PR standpoint to kick people out of their homes over the holidays.

[golfproz]

It’s possible that all the bail out talk gave people a spark of hope. This may have enticed them to make a payment in the hopes that the bail out would save them. I’ve also read it’s not good fromn a PR standpoint to kick people out of their homes over the holidays.

[Author]

Posts