Question for the bulls

[Ren]

I was talking with the MIL about all-cash flippers reselling for big profits, and she freaked a little, saying they should all go to “their own special level of hell”. This was a bit of a surprise, and after telling her that I would be doing exactly the same thing if I had the money, I explained that A) the flippers get their profit, B) the bank gets a loan, and C) the little guy gets a home. Everyone’s happy, so where’s the harm? She just mumbled something about “evil” and didn’t really have an answer.

I’m a little guy also, and I really don’t see the big deal in paying list price for a place, as long as it’s reasonable compared to rents. I just put in an offer on a really great Temecula place for $120/sf. That’s high compared to last year, and yeah I would be “overpaying”, but still so ridiculously affordable that there’s really no reason to bitch about it. I couldn’t rent an equivalent place in SD for $1,000/month more.

[davelj]

I still think the mid- and high-ends are going to come down more at some point, but the low end has so much real demand (lots of all-cash buyers) that I’m not so sure that perhaps the low end has either seen its bottom or is very close.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/10/jim-realtor-no-shortage-of-buyers.html

I know there’s a lot of shadow inventory that’s yet to show up – and it will at some point – but when you have 5, 10, 20+ offers – many in cash – for these foreclosures, the losing bidders end up moving on to another property. I think the demand at the low end will more than offset the shadow inventory that comes online over the next couple of years. In too many cases, the price is right relative to renting.

But I can’t say the same thing about the mid- and high-ends.

[davelj]

I still think the mid- and high-ends are going to come down more at some point, but the low end has so much real demand (lots of all-cash buyers) that I’m not so sure that perhaps the low end has either seen its bottom or is very close.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/10/jim-realtor-no-shortage-of-buyers.html

I know there’s a lot of shadow inventory that’s yet to show up – and it will at some point – but when you have 5, 10, 20+ offers – many in cash – for these foreclosures, the losing bidders end up moving on to another property. I think the demand at the low end will more than offset the shadow inventory that comes online over the next couple of years. In too many cases, the price is right relative to renting.

But I can’t say the same thing about the mid- and high-ends.

[davelj]

I still think the mid- and high-ends are going to come down more at some point, but the low end has so much real demand (lots of all-cash buyers) that I’m not so sure that perhaps the low end has either seen its bottom or is very close.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/10/jim-realtor-no-shortage-of-buyers.html

I know there’s a lot of shadow inventory that’s yet to show up – and it will at some point – but when you have 5, 10, 20+ offers – many in cash – for these foreclosures, the losing bidders end up moving on to another property. I think the demand at the low end will more than offset the shadow inventory that comes online over the next couple of years. In too many cases, the price is right relative to renting.

But I can’t say the same thing about the mid- and high-ends.

[davelj]

I still think the mid- and high-ends are going to come down more at some point, but the low end has so much real demand (lots of all-cash buyers) that I’m not so sure that perhaps the low end has either seen its bottom or is very close.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/10/jim-realtor-no-shortage-of-buyers.html

I know there’s a lot of shadow inventory that’s yet to show up – and it will at some point – but when you have 5, 10, 20+ offers – many in cash – for these foreclosures, the losing bidders end up moving on to another property. I think the demand at the low end will more than offset the shadow inventory that comes online over the next couple of years. In too many cases, the price is right relative to renting.

But I can’t say the same thing about the mid- and high-ends.

[davelj]

I still think the mid- and high-ends are going to come down more at some point, but the low end has so much real demand (lots of all-cash buyers) that I’m not so sure that perhaps the low end has either seen its bottom or is very close.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/10/jim-realtor-no-shortage-of-buyers.html

I know there’s a lot of shadow inventory that’s yet to show up – and it will at some point – but when you have 5, 10, 20+ offers – many in cash – for these foreclosures, the losing bidders end up moving on to another property. I think the demand at the low end will more than offset the shadow inventory that comes online over the next couple of years. In too many cases, the price is right relative to renting.

But I can’t say the same thing about the mid- and high-ends.

[Rt.66]

People, people, people. It seems that no one is disagreeing with me but at the same time some want to appear as if they agree with SDRealtor. Here is the statement I am debating:

1. The pre-foreclosure data looks much worse than it actually is. That’s because this data includes defaults on second mortgages. Many people intentionally defaulted on the 2nd mortgages only, knowing that the junior lien holders don’t have the legal right to kick them out. At the same time, these same people negotiate with the primary mortgage lender to lower their mortgage payments. So, a significant percentage of the properties that are in default will not end up as REOs.

I can’t find one post from anybody agreeing “pre-foreclosure data looks much worse than it actually is” because of 2nds. Notice the word MUCH.

From what I can see there is no one else that has posted they believe there is an appreciable number of 2nds who have filed NODs, let alone ”many” that have done so, AND, AND that people are living in these 2nd mortgage holder filing NOD homes while paying a modified first, SO MANY to make this an accurate statement “So, a significant percentage of the properties that are in default will not end up as REOs.”

I am saying this is a total fabrication of a statement and still can’t find one article that backs up this theory. This a bulls versus bears thread, is this theory on seconds going to keep a significant percentage of homes from becoming a drag on the market thru a distressed sales/REO/short sales or not?

Stay focused people. We are looking for MANY 2nds filing NODs. AND we are looking for the owners STAYING in those homes PAYING a modified First mortgage. And documentation that a significant percentage of the properties that are in default will not end up as REOs/shorts ala a drag on RE prices.

Some keep focusing on the fact that I asked for just one example as if that means I claim there is not one case of this happening. Please note that have always maintained that it’s not happening in “appreciable numbers”. I ask for just one instance, but am not saying that a few people will not try this. No back paddling, go back and read my actual words.

Why do I need to explain these things? The claim is a significant percentage and I get stuck with explaining that I’m not debating that one or two or even a hundred people may try this highly illogical step??? WTF?

Maybe you can get it if I say it like this:

Many people are not doing this to the point that the number is so small you can’t find even one case of it. Get it? Not saying there is not one, just that it’s so rare you can’t document one. Tricky huh? But I am not saying that some people won’t try this. People will do every crazy thing imaginable in small numbers. Some may take off work to try and get a photo of Big Foot to sell and pay off the late mortgage. Some may try the Vegas tables to get out of the hole. I’m just saying it’s a really small number and so small in fact no one else has documented or wrote of its occurrence

The statement uses the words MANY of and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. Not one or two or a hundred, out of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. SO I am not debating what the statement does NOT SAY (one or two) I am debating what it does say……. MANY and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE. What a concept.

And please recognize that a short sale wherein they lose the house is not an example of what we are looking for. A short sale is just that, SHORT, as in short of the original loan as in just another form of distressed, market dragging inventory. Whether the house sells at drastic discount at short sale before a complete foreclosure or it sells at a drastic discount as an REO matters not. For a bear argument, same, same, bad, bad.

[Rt.66]

People, people, people. It seems that no one is disagreeing with me but at the same time some want to appear as if they agree with SDRealtor. Here is the statement I am debating:

1. The pre-foreclosure data looks much worse than it actually is. That’s because this data includes defaults on second mortgages. Many people intentionally defaulted on the 2nd mortgages only, knowing that the junior lien holders don’t have the legal right to kick them out. At the same time, these same people negotiate with the primary mortgage lender to lower their mortgage payments. So, a significant percentage of the properties that are in default will not end up as REOs.

I can’t find one post from anybody agreeing “pre-foreclosure data looks much worse than it actually is” because of 2nds. Notice the word MUCH.

From what I can see there is no one else that has posted they believe there is an appreciable number of 2nds who have filed NODs, let alone ”many” that have done so, AND, AND that people are living in these 2nd mortgage holder filing NOD homes while paying a modified first, SO MANY to make this an accurate statement “So, a significant percentage of the properties that are in default will not end up as REOs.”

I am saying this is a total fabrication of a statement and still can’t find one article that backs up this theory. This a bulls versus bears thread, is this theory on seconds going to keep a significant percentage of homes from becoming a drag on the market thru a distressed sales/REO/short sales or not?

Stay focused people. We are looking for MANY 2nds filing NODs. AND we are looking for the owners STAYING in those homes PAYING a modified First mortgage. And documentation that a significant percentage of the properties that are in default will not end up as REOs/shorts ala a drag on RE prices.

Some keep focusing on the fact that I asked for just one example as if that means I claim there is not one case of this happening. Please note that have always maintained that it’s not happening in “appreciable numbers”. I ask for just one instance, but am not saying that a few people will not try this. No back paddling, go back and read my actual words.

Why do I need to explain these things? The claim is a significant percentage and I get stuck with explaining that I’m not debating that one or two or even a hundred people may try this highly illogical step??? WTF?

Maybe you can get it if I say it like this:

Many people are not doing this to the point that the number is so small you can’t find even one case of it. Get it? Not saying there is not one, just that it’s so rare you can’t document one. Tricky huh? But I am not saying that some people won’t try this. People will do every crazy thing imaginable in small numbers. Some may take off work to try and get a photo of Big Foot to sell and pay off the late mortgage. Some may try the Vegas tables to get out of the hole. I’m just saying it’s a really small number and so small in fact no one else has documented or wrote of its occurrence

The statement uses the words MANY of and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. Not one or two or a hundred, out of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. SO I am not debating what the statement does NOT SAY (one or two) I am debating what it does say……. MANY and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE. What a concept.

And please recognize that a short sale wherein they lose the house is not an example of what we are looking for. A short sale is just that, SHORT, as in short of the original loan as in just another form of distressed, market dragging inventory. Whether the house sells at drastic discount at short sale before a complete foreclosure or it sells at a drastic discount as an REO matters not. For a bear argument, same, same, bad, bad.

[Rt.66]

People, people, people. It seems that no one is disagreeing with me but at the same time some want to appear as if they agree with SDRealtor. Here is the statement I am debating:

1. The pre-foreclosure data looks much worse than it actually is. That’s because this data includes defaults on second mortgages. Many people intentionally defaulted on the 2nd mortgages only, knowing that the junior lien holders don’t have the legal right to kick them out. At the same time, these same people negotiate with the primary mortgage lender to lower their mortgage payments. So, a significant percentage of the properties that are in default will not end up as REOs.

I can’t find one post from anybody agreeing “pre-foreclosure data looks much worse than it actually is” because of 2nds. Notice the word MUCH.

From what I can see there is no one else that has posted they believe there is an appreciable number of 2nds who have filed NODs, let alone ”many” that have done so, AND, AND that people are living in these 2nd mortgage holder filing NOD homes while paying a modified first, SO MANY to make this an accurate statement “So, a significant percentage of the properties that are in default will not end up as REOs.”

I am saying this is a total fabrication of a statement and still can’t find one article that backs up this theory. This a bulls versus bears thread, is this theory on seconds going to keep a significant percentage of homes from becoming a drag on the market thru a distressed sales/REO/short sales or not?

Stay focused people. We are looking for MANY 2nds filing NODs. AND we are looking for the owners STAYING in those homes PAYING a modified First mortgage. And documentation that a significant percentage of the properties that are in default will not end up as REOs/shorts ala a drag on RE prices.

Some keep focusing on the fact that I asked for just one example as if that means I claim there is not one case of this happening. Please note that have always maintained that it’s not happening in “appreciable numbers”. I ask for just one instance, but am not saying that a few people will not try this. No back paddling, go back and read my actual words.

Why do I need to explain these things? The claim is a significant percentage and I get stuck with explaining that I’m not debating that one or two or even a hundred people may try this highly illogical step??? WTF?

Maybe you can get it if I say it like this:

Many people are not doing this to the point that the number is so small you can’t find even one case of it. Get it? Not saying there is not one, just that it’s so rare you can’t document one. Tricky huh? But I am not saying that some people won’t try this. People will do every crazy thing imaginable in small numbers. Some may take off work to try and get a photo of Big Foot to sell and pay off the late mortgage. Some may try the Vegas tables to get out of the hole. I’m just saying it’s a really small number and so small in fact no one else has documented or wrote of its occurrence

The statement uses the words MANY of and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. Not one or two or a hundred, out of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. SO I am not debating what the statement does NOT SAY (one or two) I am debating what it does say……. MANY and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE. What a concept.

And please recognize that a short sale wherein they lose the house is not an example of what we are looking for. A short sale is just that, SHORT, as in short of the original loan as in just another form of distressed, market dragging inventory. Whether the house sells at drastic discount at short sale before a complete foreclosure or it sells at a drastic discount as an REO matters not. For a bear argument, same, same, bad, bad.

[Rt.66]

People, people, people. It seems that no one is disagreeing with me but at the same time some want to appear as if they agree with SDRealtor. Here is the statement I am debating:

1. The pre-foreclosure data looks much worse than it actually is. That’s because this data includes defaults on second mortgages. Many people intentionally defaulted on the 2nd mortgages only, knowing that the junior lien holders don’t have the legal right to kick them out. At the same time, these same people negotiate with the primary mortgage lender to lower their mortgage payments. So, a significant percentage of the properties that are in default will not end up as REOs.

I can’t find one post from anybody agreeing “pre-foreclosure data looks much worse than it actually is” because of 2nds. Notice the word MUCH.

From what I can see there is no one else that has posted they believe there is an appreciable number of 2nds who have filed NODs, let alone ”many” that have done so, AND, AND that people are living in these 2nd mortgage holder filing NOD homes while paying a modified first, SO MANY to make this an accurate statement “So, a significant percentage of the properties that are in default will not end up as REOs.”

I am saying this is a total fabrication of a statement and still can’t find one article that backs up this theory. This a bulls versus bears thread, is this theory on seconds going to keep a significant percentage of homes from becoming a drag on the market thru a distressed sales/REO/short sales or not?

Stay focused people. We are looking for MANY 2nds filing NODs. AND we are looking for the owners STAYING in those homes PAYING a modified First mortgage. And documentation that a significant percentage of the properties that are in default will not end up as REOs/shorts ala a drag on RE prices.

Some keep focusing on the fact that I asked for just one example as if that means I claim there is not one case of this happening. Please note that have always maintained that it’s not happening in “appreciable numbers”. I ask for just one instance, but am not saying that a few people will not try this. No back paddling, go back and read my actual words.

Why do I need to explain these things? The claim is a significant percentage and I get stuck with explaining that I’m not debating that one or two or even a hundred people may try this highly illogical step??? WTF?

Maybe you can get it if I say it like this:

Many people are not doing this to the point that the number is so small you can’t find even one case of it. Get it? Not saying there is not one, just that it’s so rare you can’t document one. Tricky huh? But I am not saying that some people won’t try this. People will do every crazy thing imaginable in small numbers. Some may take off work to try and get a photo of Big Foot to sell and pay off the late mortgage. Some may try the Vegas tables to get out of the hole. I’m just saying it’s a really small number and so small in fact no one else has documented or wrote of its occurrence

The statement uses the words MANY of and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. Not one or two or a hundred, out of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. SO I am not debating what the statement does NOT SAY (one or two) I am debating what it does say……. MANY and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE. What a concept.

And please recognize that a short sale wherein they lose the house is not an example of what we are looking for. A short sale is just that, SHORT, as in short of the original loan as in just another form of distressed, market dragging inventory. Whether the house sells at drastic discount at short sale before a complete foreclosure or it sells at a drastic discount as an REO matters not. For a bear argument, same, same, bad, bad.

[Rt.66]

People, people, people. It seems that no one is disagreeing with me but at the same time some want to appear as if they agree with SDRealtor. Here is the statement I am debating:

1. The pre-foreclosure data looks much worse than it actually is. That’s because this data includes defaults on second mortgages. Many people intentionally defaulted on the 2nd mortgages only, knowing that the junior lien holders don’t have the legal right to kick them out. At the same time, these same people negotiate with the primary mortgage lender to lower their mortgage payments. So, a significant percentage of the properties that are in default will not end up as REOs.

I can’t find one post from anybody agreeing “pre-foreclosure data looks much worse than it actually is” because of 2nds. Notice the word MUCH.

From what I can see there is no one else that has posted they believe there is an appreciable number of 2nds who have filed NODs, let alone ”many” that have done so, AND, AND that people are living in these 2nd mortgage holder filing NOD homes while paying a modified first, SO MANY to make this an accurate statement “So, a significant percentage of the properties that are in default will not end up as REOs.”

I am saying this is a total fabrication of a statement and still can’t find one article that backs up this theory. This a bulls versus bears thread, is this theory on seconds going to keep a significant percentage of homes from becoming a drag on the market thru a distressed sales/REO/short sales or not?

Stay focused people. We are looking for MANY 2nds filing NODs. AND we are looking for the owners STAYING in those homes PAYING a modified First mortgage. And documentation that a significant percentage of the properties that are in default will not end up as REOs/shorts ala a drag on RE prices.

Some keep focusing on the fact that I asked for just one example as if that means I claim there is not one case of this happening. Please note that have always maintained that it’s not happening in “appreciable numbers”. I ask for just one instance, but am not saying that a few people will not try this. No back paddling, go back and read my actual words.

Why do I need to explain these things? The claim is a significant percentage and I get stuck with explaining that I’m not debating that one or two or even a hundred people may try this highly illogical step??? WTF?

Maybe you can get it if I say it like this:

Many people are not doing this to the point that the number is so small you can’t find even one case of it. Get it? Not saying there is not one, just that it’s so rare you can’t document one. Tricky huh? But I am not saying that some people won’t try this. People will do every crazy thing imaginable in small numbers. Some may take off work to try and get a photo of Big Foot to sell and pay off the late mortgage. Some may try the Vegas tables to get out of the hole. I’m just saying it’s a really small number and so small in fact no one else has documented or wrote of its occurrence

The statement uses the words MANY of and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. Not one or two or a hundred, out of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. SO I am not debating what the statement does NOT SAY (one or two) I am debating what it does say……. MANY and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE. What a concept.

And please recognize that a short sale wherein they lose the house is not an example of what we are looking for. A short sale is just that, SHORT, as in short of the original loan as in just another form of distressed, market dragging inventory. Whether the house sells at drastic discount at short sale before a complete foreclosure or it sells at a drastic discount as an REO matters not. For a bear argument, same, same, bad, bad.

[davelj]

[quote=Rt.66]

The statement uses the words MANY of and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. Not one or two or a hundred, out of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. SO I am not debating what the statement does NOT SAY (one or two) I am debating what it does say……. MANY and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE. What a concept.
[/quote]

Where is Bill Clinton when we really need his semantic distinctions?

[davelj]

[quote=Rt.66]

The statement uses the words MANY of and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. Not one or two or a hundred, out of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. SO I am not debating what the statement does NOT SAY (one or two) I am debating what it does say……. MANY and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE. What a concept.
[/quote]

Where is Bill Clinton when we really need his semantic distinctions?

[davelj]

[quote=Rt.66]

The statement uses the words MANY of and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. Not one or two or a hundred, out of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. SO I am not debating what the statement does NOT SAY (one or two) I am debating what it does say……. MANY and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE. What a concept.
[/quote]

Where is Bill Clinton when we really need his semantic distinctions?

[davelj]

[quote=Rt.66]

The statement uses the words MANY of and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. Not one or two or a hundred, out of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. SO I am not debating what the statement does NOT SAY (one or two) I am debating what it does say……. MANY and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE. What a concept.
[/quote]

Where is Bill Clinton when we really need his semantic distinctions?

[Author]

Posts