People who can’t afford their house but get to keep it?!

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor]CAR
I just ran comps for my Mom’s old home. Its in what is probably the best/nicest 55+ community in SD County. Fortunately I convinced her to sell about 4 years at close to the peak value. Its down almost 50% since then and at roughly what they paid in the late 80’s.[/quote]

Yep. I follow a few areas in Southern California (including some in LA County), and have been surprised by how low some of the prices have gone. It’s not that I think they should be higher, since we ARE in a major recession that will probably last many, many years (even if it’s not “officially” a recession), but the speed of the price declines in some areas has been pretty breathtaking.

[hslinger]

[quote=bearishgurl]Under the current CA foreclosure “statutory scheme” of 111 to 141 days to trustees sale, if a lender lost $100K in “missed payments” (and followed this procedure to the letter), they would have lost $709 to $901 per day![/quote]BG it’s a good thing rationality isn’t expected of you because no one in their right mind would try to link a principle write down exclusively to missed payments.

Continue on with your whining, your irrational expectations are amusing.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter]

Yep. I follow a few areas in Southern California (including some in LA County), and have been surprised by how low some of the prices have gone. It’s not that I think they should be higher, since we ARE in a major recession that will probably last many, many years (even if it’s not “officially” a recession), but the speed of the price declines in some areas has been pretty breathtaking.[/quote]

I wonder what your definition of a recession is CA renter.

The general definition of an end to recession is simply growth from the low point. It doesn’t mean that prices and output are back to peak levels.

Incidentally, economic output is now back above peak level.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-28/economy-in-u-s-surpasses-pre-recession-level-after-15-quarters.html

In the UK, however, economic output is still lagging peak level.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2071180/UK-economy-2013-2008-peak-says-NIESR.html

Without government intervention, house price declines would have been more breathtaking, as you put it. Growth, from a lower low point, would have returned sooner. But I doubt economic output would have already come back above peak levels.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=hslinger][quote=bearishgurl]Under the current CA foreclosure “statutory scheme” of 111 to 141 days to trustees sale, if a lender lost $100K in “missed payments” (and followed this procedure to the letter), they would have lost $709 to $901 per day![/quote]BG it’s a good thing rationality isn’t expected of you because no one in their right mind would try to link a principle write down exclusively to missed payments.

Continue on with your whining, your irrational expectations are amusing.[/quote]

hslinger, the vast majority of folks in the “squat-mod” and “squat-SS” group haven’t had a chance to pay down any principal due to having I/O loans, choosing Option 3 or 4 on their “Option ARMS” or hitting their 125% threshold on their “exotic” mtg instrument, lol . . . Most are no doubt in the in “FB” group, meaning they are “Millenium Boom buyers.” The one’s that aren’t and are currently in these two groups have bled their ATM machine/”home” dry. And if they’ve paid any principal down at all, it has been eaten up by (multiple) closing costs, late fees and trustees fees.

If you read thru the thread, you will see that sdr’s stated his squat-“successful mod” example (who remodeled themselves into their “situation” they are in today) had “$100K of missed payments forgiven.” He claimed these missed payments (no doubt along with late fees, deferred interest and trustees fees) resulted in a $100K loss to their lender which they wrote off in a mod in favor of the FB’s.

I maintain that their lender voluntarily allowed themselves to be screwed to the tune of $100K if (this story is factual). They could have foreclosed at the 111-day or 141-day mark after the 1st payment was missed but instead allowed these borrowers to “squat” for many months in their (newly-remodeled) property.

Hence, the term I coined as “lender malaise.” The lenders have made their own beds.

I agree that “$709 to $901” per day is a ridiculous amount for a lender to lose and probably never happens. A fictitious residential mtg this large is not often (if ever) obtained, esp in the US. Obviously, a mtg this large would be a “private” loan and this type of lender would likely not be “compensated” by TPTB to delay foreclosure to allow their borrowers to indefinitely “squat.”

I urge you to reread the thread and continue to be “amused.”

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1]…Without government intervention, house price declines would have been more breathtaking, as you put it. Growth, from a lower low point, would have returned sooner. But I doubt economic output would have already come back above peak levels.[/quote]

We can agree on this, brian. I believe growth from a lower low point (end ’07/begin ’08 or even ’09) would have been preferable to what we have now as it relates to our local housing market.

I don’t work in the industry and only keep up with my (local) closings every 3-4 mos or so. It was SHOCKING to me (when I recently checked local closings since the summer in late November) how much prices have dropped, causing many properties around me to be “undervalued.” Contrary to what some (ignorant) poster(s) have stated about my area on this thread, there are many estate-like luxury properties on 1-4 AC lots within 2-7 blocks from my home. The only point I was trying to make is that the “good stuff” owned by the “best hands” in EVERY area will NOT be marketed in this climate, even if its owners were toying with the idea of selling. Current moderate/middle/upper middle income “working” buyer households are left with crap out there to choose from (majority are “distressed” sales) in which the seller has not been able to afford to maintain properly for part or all of their period of ownership. The only other buying option available is overpriced, over-encumbered new construction.

In the lower-priced “equity sales” that ARE currently closing escrow, they likely have been long-ago paid off and most have not had anything done to them in 30+ years (likely elderly sellers who have already or must now move in with relatives or an assisted-living arrangement). OR they sell to a very specific buyer who appreciates and will pay for a property’s unique location and/or what was recently done to the property (in the last decade).

Longtime owners with mortgages aren’t going to take a hit to their OWN recent cash investments if they don’t have to.

It’s difficult at this time to predict how long these conditions will be present.

[CDMA ENG]

I would pay good money for a FBI profiler to read this thread and see what thier analysis concludes.

CE

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]

Yep. I follow a few areas in Southern California (including some in LA County), and have been surprised by how low some of the prices have gone. It’s not that I think they should be higher, since we ARE in a major recession that will probably last many, many years (even if it’s not “officially” a recession), but the speed of the price declines in some areas has been pretty breathtaking.[/quote]

I wonder what your definition of a recession is CA renter.

The general definition of an end to recession is simply growth from the low point. It doesn’t mean that prices and output are back to peak levels.

Incidentally, economic output is now back above peak level.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-28/economy-in-u-s-surpasses-pre-recession-level-after-15-quarters.html

In the UK, however, economic output is still lagging peak level.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2071180/UK-economy-2013-2008-peak-says-NIESR.html

Without government intervention, house price declines would have been more breathtaking, as you put it. Growth, from a lower low point, would have returned sooner. But I doubt economic output would have already come back above peak levels.[/quote]

From your Bloomberg link:

“Consumers reduced savings to boost purchases and companies stepped up investment in equipment and software, even as the biggest drop in incomes in two years raises concerns about whether the spending increase will continue. The number of Americans with jobs last month, 131.3 million, was lower than the 138 million workers in December 2007, when the 18-month recession began, according to Labor Department data.

…………

How many of those jobs pay the same or more than what they were paying in 2007? How much more stable are those jobs than they were in 2007 (perceived and/or real stability)?

IMHO, the job market has not bounced back in a sustainable way. There are systemic problems that have not been addressed. Sure, pumping cheap debt into the economy can make it look like things are getting better; but in a world where the #1 problem is too much debt, increasing debt will only lead to greater problems down the road. Until our debt situation is addressed in a responsible way, we are not out of the recession, IMHO. Also, if we do not address the systemic problems regarding our tax and trade policies, any “recovery” will be tepid and fleeing.

[SD Realtor]

I would pay good money for a FBI profiler to read this thread and see what thier analysis concludes.

CE

The FBI profiler would have turned on ignore user by page 2

[scaredyclassic]

I think I fit the profile of a deranged serial monogamist.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter] Until our debt situation is addressed in a responsible way, we are not out of the recession, IMHO. Also, if we do not address the systemic problems regarding our tax and trade policies, any “recovery” will be tepid and fleeing.[/quote]

I’m sorry but you will have to find another word, CA renter. Using the word recession to mean economic uncertainty is simply not correct.

Recession means contraction in economic output or jobs, or whatever. We have had growth from a low point. That’s growth, not recession.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter] Until our debt situation is addressed in a responsible way, we are not out of the recession, IMHO. Also, if we do not address the systemic problems regarding our tax and trade policies, any “recovery” will be tepid and fleeing.[/quote]

I’m sorry but you will have to find another word, CA renter. Using the word recession to mean economic uncertainty is simply not correct.

Recession means contraction in economic output or jobs, or whatever. We have had growth from a low point. That’s growth, not recession.[/quote]

Okay, I’m using my own definition of a recession.

Where would we be without all the artificial stimulus that’s been provided by the Fed/govt/taxpayers — all of which will cause even greater problems (and an even greater “official” recession/depression) in the future? IMHO, if an economy can’t grow on its own, and is performing at below-normal levels even with massive pumping at the govt/Fed level, then we are in a recession.

Of course, my definition is not the “official” definition, but I think it’s a much more honest and valuable assessment than the “official” version.

[scaredyclassic]

Receding from where?

[briansd1]

What is an economy growing on its own?
There’s always something spurring economic growth.

We want to spur growth in some way or another, otherwise the resources are sitting idle, wasting away.

Economic growth is now under 2%.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CDMA ENG]I would pay good money for a FBI profiler to read this thread and see what thier analysis concludes.

CE[/quote]

This statement is coming from a poster who, by their posts, has demonstrated on this forum more than once their tendencies towards paranoia :={

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1]What is an economy growing on its own?
There’s always something spurring economic growth.

We want to spur growth in some way or another, otherwise the resources are sitting idle, wasting away.

Economic growth is now under 2%.[/quote]

IMHO, pumping up asset prices by expanding debt/leverage is a fool’s game. From everything I’ve seen, asset prices increases (not truly reflected in CPI numbers) and debt increases are what’s spurring GDP growth, as opposed to sustainable productivity growth and increased exports.

Today, people are still too deep in debt, wages are still stagnant or declining, and prices of basic necessities are rising faster than wages. That doesn’t equal a healthy economy in my book.

[Author]

Posts