- This topic has 125 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 9 months ago by
robson.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 23, 2008 at 9:07 AM #158546February 23, 2008 at 9:42 AM #158182
34f3f3f
ParticipantIt is frightening to think that one in every ten people you know who owns a home in is negative equity, but I wonder what the distribution for this figure is demographically and geographically? It would be interesting to draw a national map with with the hot spots, and cool areas.
February 23, 2008 at 9:42 AM #158476ParticipantIt is frightening to think that one in every ten people you know who owns a home in is negative equity, but I wonder what the distribution for this figure is demographically and geographically? It would be interesting to draw a national map with with the hot spots, and cool areas.
February 23, 2008 at 9:42 AM #158485ParticipantIt is frightening to think that one in every ten people you know who owns a home in is negative equity, but I wonder what the distribution for this figure is demographically and geographically? It would be interesting to draw a national map with with the hot spots, and cool areas.
February 23, 2008 at 9:42 AM #158495ParticipantIt is frightening to think that one in every ten people you know who owns a home in is negative equity, but I wonder what the distribution for this figure is demographically and geographically? It would be interesting to draw a national map with with the hot spots, and cool areas.
February 23, 2008 at 9:42 AM #158566ParticipantIt is frightening to think that one in every ten people you know who owns a home in is negative equity, but I wonder what the distribution for this figure is demographically and geographically? It would be interesting to draw a national map with with the hot spots, and cool areas.
February 23, 2008 at 10:06 AM #158192sdrealtor
ParticipantI’m not sure but my impression was that this is shotty reporting. I believe the true statisitic is 1 in 10 mortgages is underwater not 1 in 10 households. So we can pull out all the homes across the US owned free and clear of which there are many albeit not so many around here. I also wonder whether they are considering a 1st trust deed and a 2nd or 3rd loan as separate loans. Thus the first can be ok while the 2nd is underwater increasing the % of loans underwater. I also wonder whether they are assuming that all HELOC’s are at there credit limits which is far from true nationally. I’d love to see someone get to the bottom of the study behind this statitics to suss out what the real situation is.
February 23, 2008 at 10:06 AM #158483ParticipantI’m not sure but my impression was that this is shotty reporting. I believe the true statisitic is 1 in 10 mortgages is underwater not 1 in 10 households. So we can pull out all the homes across the US owned free and clear of which there are many albeit not so many around here. I also wonder whether they are considering a 1st trust deed and a 2nd or 3rd loan as separate loans. Thus the first can be ok while the 2nd is underwater increasing the % of loans underwater. I also wonder whether they are assuming that all HELOC’s are at there credit limits which is far from true nationally. I’d love to see someone get to the bottom of the study behind this statitics to suss out what the real situation is.
February 23, 2008 at 10:06 AM #158493ParticipantI’m not sure but my impression was that this is shotty reporting. I believe the true statisitic is 1 in 10 mortgages is underwater not 1 in 10 households. So we can pull out all the homes across the US owned free and clear of which there are many albeit not so many around here. I also wonder whether they are considering a 1st trust deed and a 2nd or 3rd loan as separate loans. Thus the first can be ok while the 2nd is underwater increasing the % of loans underwater. I also wonder whether they are assuming that all HELOC’s are at there credit limits which is far from true nationally. I’d love to see someone get to the bottom of the study behind this statitics to suss out what the real situation is.
February 23, 2008 at 10:06 AM #158503ParticipantI’m not sure but my impression was that this is shotty reporting. I believe the true statisitic is 1 in 10 mortgages is underwater not 1 in 10 households. So we can pull out all the homes across the US owned free and clear of which there are many albeit not so many around here. I also wonder whether they are considering a 1st trust deed and a 2nd or 3rd loan as separate loans. Thus the first can be ok while the 2nd is underwater increasing the % of loans underwater. I also wonder whether they are assuming that all HELOC’s are at there credit limits which is far from true nationally. I’d love to see someone get to the bottom of the study behind this statitics to suss out what the real situation is.
February 23, 2008 at 10:06 AM #158576ParticipantI’m not sure but my impression was that this is shotty reporting. I believe the true statisitic is 1 in 10 mortgages is underwater not 1 in 10 households. So we can pull out all the homes across the US owned free and clear of which there are many albeit not so many around here. I also wonder whether they are considering a 1st trust deed and a 2nd or 3rd loan as separate loans. Thus the first can be ok while the 2nd is underwater increasing the % of loans underwater. I also wonder whether they are assuming that all HELOC’s are at there credit limits which is far from true nationally. I’d love to see someone get to the bottom of the study behind this statitics to suss out what the real situation is.
February 23, 2008 at 10:11 AM #158202
barnaby33ParticipantIm with sdrealtor on this one. Here in SD, I’d have no problem buying that, but not nationwide. Too many places especially in the middle of the country just didn’t see the huge run-ups, Places like Kansas City. I don’t have counter numbers but that would just be beyond staggering.
Josh
February 23, 2008 at 10:11 AM #158494barnaby33ParticipantIm with sdrealtor on this one. Here in SD, I’d have no problem buying that, but not nationwide. Too many places especially in the middle of the country just didn’t see the huge run-ups, Places like Kansas City. I don’t have counter numbers but that would just be beyond staggering.
Josh
February 23, 2008 at 10:11 AM #158504barnaby33ParticipantIm with sdrealtor on this one. Here in SD, I’d have no problem buying that, but not nationwide. Too many places especially in the middle of the country just didn’t see the huge run-ups, Places like Kansas City. I don’t have counter numbers but that would just be beyond staggering.
Josh
February 23, 2008 at 10:11 AM #158513barnaby33ParticipantIm with sdrealtor on this one. Here in SD, I’d have no problem buying that, but not nationwide. Too many places especially in the middle of the country just didn’t see the huge run-ups, Places like Kansas City. I don’t have counter numbers but that would just be beyond staggering.
Josh
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.