We Finally Bought

[KIBU]

Except you can’t just walk away in a marriage. You may be in for many surprises to come to understand the invisible links that you still have to have.

I would say, divorce is 1000 times worse. That’s why I tell myself I need to be 100% loyal.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=jpinpb][quote=svelte]
With a US divorce rate of 46%, I’d say people “short sale” their marriage at a higher rate than homes.[/quote]

Considering the banks are not doing anything, compare it to couples who are separated. I think there would be more short sales and/or foreclosures if the banks would act on nonperforming loans and people not paying. I think the percentage would be greater than divorce.[/quote]

I think there is a misconception in that banks ARE acting but just doing so very slowly.

EG: BofA is just now issuing NOD’s on Countrywide loans that have not been performing for years.

Many banks just move really slowly. Sometimes its because they are still overwhelmed (Aurora, CalHFA) and sometimes its by design (WFHM).

In many ways it would be better to describe foreclosure numbers in terms of SPEED as opposed to QUANTITY.

I differ with many in that I think the speed up of decision-making (by banks) would actually really improve the market in terms of certainty and signaling. Those are, after all, historically a major non-s/d component of real estate markets.

For example, if we got to a point where the difference between an reo, a short sale, and a normal equity sale was essentially non-existent, then most of the downward pressure of opaque information sets would be eliminated.
This would dramatically simplify the existing market forces. The cheap prices would lead to greater effective demand (all other things being equal–which we know they are not).
Unlike some, I see low prices and heavy inventory as a potentially bullish factor (in the same way that other cheap goods and services can be more broadly beneficial).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=jpinpb][quote=svelte]
With a US divorce rate of 46%, I’d say people “short sale” their marriage at a higher rate than homes.[/quote]

Considering the banks are not doing anything, compare it to couples who are separated. I think there would be more short sales and/or foreclosures if the banks would act on nonperforming loans and people not paying. I think the percentage would be greater than divorce.[/quote]

I think there is a misconception in that banks ARE acting but just doing so very slowly.

EG: BofA is just now issuing NOD’s on Countrywide loans that have not been performing for years.

Many banks just move really slowly. Sometimes its because they are still overwhelmed (Aurora, CalHFA) and sometimes its by design (WFHM).

In many ways it would be better to describe foreclosure numbers in terms of SPEED as opposed to QUANTITY.

I differ with many in that I think the speed up of decision-making (by banks) would actually really improve the market in terms of certainty and signaling. Those are, after all, historically a major non-s/d component of real estate markets.

For example, if we got to a point where the difference between an reo, a short sale, and a normal equity sale was essentially non-existent, then most of the downward pressure of opaque information sets would be eliminated.
This would dramatically simplify the existing market forces. The cheap prices would lead to greater effective demand (all other things being equal–which we know they are not).
Unlike some, I see low prices and heavy inventory as a potentially bullish factor (in the same way that other cheap goods and services can be more broadly beneficial).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=jpinpb][quote=svelte]
With a US divorce rate of 46%, I’d say people “short sale” their marriage at a higher rate than homes.[/quote]

Considering the banks are not doing anything, compare it to couples who are separated. I think there would be more short sales and/or foreclosures if the banks would act on nonperforming loans and people not paying. I think the percentage would be greater than divorce.[/quote]

I think there is a misconception in that banks ARE acting but just doing so very slowly.

EG: BofA is just now issuing NOD’s on Countrywide loans that have not been performing for years.

Many banks just move really slowly. Sometimes its because they are still overwhelmed (Aurora, CalHFA) and sometimes its by design (WFHM).

In many ways it would be better to describe foreclosure numbers in terms of SPEED as opposed to QUANTITY.

I differ with many in that I think the speed up of decision-making (by banks) would actually really improve the market in terms of certainty and signaling. Those are, after all, historically a major non-s/d component of real estate markets.

For example, if we got to a point where the difference between an reo, a short sale, and a normal equity sale was essentially non-existent, then most of the downward pressure of opaque information sets would be eliminated.
This would dramatically simplify the existing market forces. The cheap prices would lead to greater effective demand (all other things being equal–which we know they are not).
Unlike some, I see low prices and heavy inventory as a potentially bullish factor (in the same way that other cheap goods and services can be more broadly beneficial).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=jpinpb][quote=svelte]
With a US divorce rate of 46%, I’d say people “short sale” their marriage at a higher rate than homes.[/quote]

Considering the banks are not doing anything, compare it to couples who are separated. I think there would be more short sales and/or foreclosures if the banks would act on nonperforming loans and people not paying. I think the percentage would be greater than divorce.[/quote]

I think there is a misconception in that banks ARE acting but just doing so very slowly.

EG: BofA is just now issuing NOD’s on Countrywide loans that have not been performing for years.

Many banks just move really slowly. Sometimes its because they are still overwhelmed (Aurora, CalHFA) and sometimes its by design (WFHM).

In many ways it would be better to describe foreclosure numbers in terms of SPEED as opposed to QUANTITY.

I differ with many in that I think the speed up of decision-making (by banks) would actually really improve the market in terms of certainty and signaling. Those are, after all, historically a major non-s/d component of real estate markets.

For example, if we got to a point where the difference between an reo, a short sale, and a normal equity sale was essentially non-existent, then most of the downward pressure of opaque information sets would be eliminated.
This would dramatically simplify the existing market forces. The cheap prices would lead to greater effective demand (all other things being equal–which we know they are not).
Unlike some, I see low prices and heavy inventory as a potentially bullish factor (in the same way that other cheap goods and services can be more broadly beneficial).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=jpinpb][quote=svelte]
With a US divorce rate of 46%, I’d say people “short sale” their marriage at a higher rate than homes.[/quote]

Considering the banks are not doing anything, compare it to couples who are separated. I think there would be more short sales and/or foreclosures if the banks would act on nonperforming loans and people not paying. I think the percentage would be greater than divorce.[/quote]

I think there is a misconception in that banks ARE acting but just doing so very slowly.

EG: BofA is just now issuing NOD’s on Countrywide loans that have not been performing for years.

Many banks just move really slowly. Sometimes its because they are still overwhelmed (Aurora, CalHFA) and sometimes its by design (WFHM).

In many ways it would be better to describe foreclosure numbers in terms of SPEED as opposed to QUANTITY.

I differ with many in that I think the speed up of decision-making (by banks) would actually really improve the market in terms of certainty and signaling. Those are, after all, historically a major non-s/d component of real estate markets.

For example, if we got to a point where the difference between an reo, a short sale, and a normal equity sale was essentially non-existent, then most of the downward pressure of opaque information sets would be eliminated.
This would dramatically simplify the existing market forces. The cheap prices would lead to greater effective demand (all other things being equal–which we know they are not).
Unlike some, I see low prices and heavy inventory as a potentially bullish factor (in the same way that other cheap goods and services can be more broadly beneficial).

[Author]

Posts