Wells will dump soon

[moneymaker]

[quote=permabear]The major banks aren’t dummies. Even if they’re changing their foreclosure rules, there’s no way they’re going to dump thousands of properties on the market overnight. And even if they tried, the government would intervene to present incentives for them NOT to, because they know it would set off a massive deflationary spiral that would tank the entire economy. One example:

http://activerain.com/blogsview/1243528/is-the-fdic-killing-short-sales-

I know lots of people on this forum are waiting for houses to drop another 30-40% so they can get them at rock-bottom prices. Be careful what you wish for. If that were to happen, there would likely be riots in the streets and major police action. We’re starting to cut into “real” gains at this point – eg equity from 10+ years ago, pre-bubble.

What is far more likely is we will continue to see this walking-on-eggshells slow drip down of a handful of REO’s coming onto the market each month over the next 5+ years. The banks aren’t dumb. They know if they threw everything onto the market, it would tank prices, which would only screw themselves. They’re going to drag it out as long as possible, and barring another major liquidity crisis, that will be years and years.[/quote]

The first bank to unload will be the winner and the last bank to unload will be the loser-we will see I guess.

[DWCAP]

A) I dont think most people are looking for ANTHER 40% off. Atleast I have not heard it from anyone who is a regular poster (or anyone else for that matter, but I sometimes miss threads). Usually when I hear 40% off stuff, it is in relation to peak prices. So, a house that was 750k ‘should’ be 450k but is still at 550k. (this is what I hear the argument as).
As I understand it, your saying that the argument is the house which is now 550k ‘should’ be 330k, and I have just never seen anyone outside of Zerohedge make such claims.
Please feel free to prove me wrong on this, I only get spotty time on Piggington.

B) Housing prices have been trending up until very reciently, due mostly to tax credits and ‘REO/modification’ shortages of inventory. The loss of these gains is not ‘cutting into real equity’. Unless you live in RSF, in which case I have no sympthay for you, your neighboorhood likley has a 10-20% equity cushion that is due purely to governement intervention and is not ‘real’.

C) Would people really riot because of their house not being worth what they want it to be? Really? I mean they wont be happy, but they would riot over it?
Now, they would riot over another depression style loss of jobs (read jan 09 X12) but that came from the implosion of too much debt (only some of which was housing debt), not falling house prices. I just dont see it.

Rather, I think what we would see is a further rise in fringe canadates, and the resulting chaos in congress. Canadates who would make Sarah Palin look moderate, and the story would be different on the left.

[DWCAP]

A) I dont think most people are looking for ANTHER 40% off. Atleast I have not heard it from anyone who is a regular poster (or anyone else for that matter, but I sometimes miss threads). Usually when I hear 40% off stuff, it is in relation to peak prices. So, a house that was 750k ‘should’ be 450k but is still at 550k. (this is what I hear the argument as).
As I understand it, your saying that the argument is the house which is now 550k ‘should’ be 330k, and I have just never seen anyone outside of Zerohedge make such claims.
Please feel free to prove me wrong on this, I only get spotty time on Piggington.

B) Housing prices have been trending up until very reciently, due mostly to tax credits and ‘REO/modification’ shortages of inventory. The loss of these gains is not ‘cutting into real equity’. Unless you live in RSF, in which case I have no sympthay for you, your neighboorhood likley has a 10-20% equity cushion that is due purely to governement intervention and is not ‘real’.

C) Would people really riot because of their house not being worth what they want it to be? Really? I mean they wont be happy, but they would riot over it?
Now, they would riot over another depression style loss of jobs (read jan 09 X12) but that came from the implosion of too much debt (only some of which was housing debt), not falling house prices. I just dont see it.

Rather, I think what we would see is a further rise in fringe canadates, and the resulting chaos in congress. Canadates who would make Sarah Palin look moderate, and the story would be different on the left.

[DWCAP]

A) I dont think most people are looking for ANTHER 40% off. Atleast I have not heard it from anyone who is a regular poster (or anyone else for that matter, but I sometimes miss threads). Usually when I hear 40% off stuff, it is in relation to peak prices. So, a house that was 750k ‘should’ be 450k but is still at 550k. (this is what I hear the argument as).
As I understand it, your saying that the argument is the house which is now 550k ‘should’ be 330k, and I have just never seen anyone outside of Zerohedge make such claims.
Please feel free to prove me wrong on this, I only get spotty time on Piggington.

B) Housing prices have been trending up until very reciently, due mostly to tax credits and ‘REO/modification’ shortages of inventory. The loss of these gains is not ‘cutting into real equity’. Unless you live in RSF, in which case I have no sympthay for you, your neighboorhood likley has a 10-20% equity cushion that is due purely to governement intervention and is not ‘real’.

C) Would people really riot because of their house not being worth what they want it to be? Really? I mean they wont be happy, but they would riot over it?
Now, they would riot over another depression style loss of jobs (read jan 09 X12) but that came from the implosion of too much debt (only some of which was housing debt), not falling house prices. I just dont see it.

Rather, I think what we would see is a further rise in fringe canadates, and the resulting chaos in congress. Canadates who would make Sarah Palin look moderate, and the story would be different on the left.

[DWCAP]

A) I dont think most people are looking for ANTHER 40% off. Atleast I have not heard it from anyone who is a regular poster (or anyone else for that matter, but I sometimes miss threads). Usually when I hear 40% off stuff, it is in relation to peak prices. So, a house that was 750k ‘should’ be 450k but is still at 550k. (this is what I hear the argument as).
As I understand it, your saying that the argument is the house which is now 550k ‘should’ be 330k, and I have just never seen anyone outside of Zerohedge make such claims.
Please feel free to prove me wrong on this, I only get spotty time on Piggington.

B) Housing prices have been trending up until very reciently, due mostly to tax credits and ‘REO/modification’ shortages of inventory. The loss of these gains is not ‘cutting into real equity’. Unless you live in RSF, in which case I have no sympthay for you, your neighboorhood likley has a 10-20% equity cushion that is due purely to governement intervention and is not ‘real’.

C) Would people really riot because of their house not being worth what they want it to be? Really? I mean they wont be happy, but they would riot over it?
Now, they would riot over another depression style loss of jobs (read jan 09 X12) but that came from the implosion of too much debt (only some of which was housing debt), not falling house prices. I just dont see it.

Rather, I think what we would see is a further rise in fringe canadates, and the resulting chaos in congress. Canadates who would make Sarah Palin look moderate, and the story would be different on the left.

[DWCAP]

A) I dont think most people are looking for ANTHER 40% off. Atleast I have not heard it from anyone who is a regular poster (or anyone else for that matter, but I sometimes miss threads). Usually when I hear 40% off stuff, it is in relation to peak prices. So, a house that was 750k ‘should’ be 450k but is still at 550k. (this is what I hear the argument as).
As I understand it, your saying that the argument is the house which is now 550k ‘should’ be 330k, and I have just never seen anyone outside of Zerohedge make such claims.
Please feel free to prove me wrong on this, I only get spotty time on Piggington.

B) Housing prices have been trending up until very reciently, due mostly to tax credits and ‘REO/modification’ shortages of inventory. The loss of these gains is not ‘cutting into real equity’. Unless you live in RSF, in which case I have no sympthay for you, your neighboorhood likley has a 10-20% equity cushion that is due purely to governement intervention and is not ‘real’.

C) Would people really riot because of their house not being worth what they want it to be? Really? I mean they wont be happy, but they would riot over it?
Now, they would riot over another depression style loss of jobs (read jan 09 X12) but that came from the implosion of too much debt (only some of which was housing debt), not falling house prices. I just dont see it.

Rather, I think what we would see is a further rise in fringe canadates, and the resulting chaos in congress. Canadates who would make Sarah Palin look moderate, and the story would be different on the left.

[Arraya]

[quote=DWCAP]A) I dont think most people are looking for ANTHER 40% off. Atleast I have not heard it from anyone who is a regular poster (or anyone else for that matter, but I sometimes miss threads). Usually when I hear 40% off stuff, it is in relation to peak prices. So, a house that was 750k ‘should’ be 450k but is still at 550k. (this is what I hear the argument as).
As I understand it, your saying that the argument is the house which is now 550k ‘should’ be 330k, and I have just never seen anyone outside of Zerohedge make such claims.
Please feel free to prove me wrong on this, I only get spotty time on Piggington.

.[/quote]

http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/2010/06/june-16-2010-fannie-and-freddie.html

As longtime readers will know, my forecast for a real estate prices is for a decline of 90% on average, albeit with considerable local variation. For those who think this is not possible, you might want to look at what you can buy a house for right now in Detroit. It is considerably less than the price of a second-hand car, and in a market where the price of second-hand cars is depressed. In places where there is no work for miles around, and no access to mortgages in dying neighbourhoods, the pool of buyers will be limited to those who can afford buy a property in cash and would choose to spend what will be extremely scarce cash on that particular purchase. The price support that will convey will be minimal, to say the least.

As unemployment takes a moonshot in the coming years, purchasing power will be far more limited than most can imagine. The liquidity crunch we are moving into will cause the same kind of economic seizure as we saw in the depression, when a lack of money alone made it exceptionally difficult to connect buyers and sellers, or producers and potential consumers. Money is the lubricant in the engine of the economy in the same way that oil is the lubricant in the engine of your car. Running an engine with too little lubricant will cause it to grind to a halt.

The ‘assistance’ currently being provided in the form of downpayments is only going to make the situation worse in the long run. Bailouts are never for the little guy. Offering inducements to further indebtedness is merely a trap. It will do nothing but increase the pool of future debt slaves. This is not a benefit for the people it is ostensibly aimed at. Instead it is a cynical move intended to keep our game of extend-and-pretend going a little longer. Rising unemployment will cruelly expose the fragility of buying power and the ability to service debt in the relatively near future. Defaults are likely to be shockingly high, and with them losses to Fannie and Freddie.

As John Stuart Mill observed, “Panics do not destroy capital, they merely reveal the extent to which it has already been destroyed by betrayal into hopelessly unproductive works.” The construction of much of suburbia has been a giant exercise in the creation of negative added value. It is this decades-long commitment of resources to living arrangements with fatal structural dependencies that has been destructive of value, and there is a limit to how long we can stave off the day when that will be generally recognized. That is all we are doing in supporting Fannie and Freddie.

[Arraya]

[quote=DWCAP]A) I dont think most people are looking for ANTHER 40% off. Atleast I have not heard it from anyone who is a regular poster (or anyone else for that matter, but I sometimes miss threads). Usually when I hear 40% off stuff, it is in relation to peak prices. So, a house that was 750k ‘should’ be 450k but is still at 550k. (this is what I hear the argument as).
As I understand it, your saying that the argument is the house which is now 550k ‘should’ be 330k, and I have just never seen anyone outside of Zerohedge make such claims.
Please feel free to prove me wrong on this, I only get spotty time on Piggington.

.[/quote]

http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/2010/06/june-16-2010-fannie-and-freddie.html

As longtime readers will know, my forecast for a real estate prices is for a decline of 90% on average, albeit with considerable local variation. For those who think this is not possible, you might want to look at what you can buy a house for right now in Detroit. It is considerably less than the price of a second-hand car, and in a market where the price of second-hand cars is depressed. In places where there is no work for miles around, and no access to mortgages in dying neighbourhoods, the pool of buyers will be limited to those who can afford buy a property in cash and would choose to spend what will be extremely scarce cash on that particular purchase. The price support that will convey will be minimal, to say the least.

As unemployment takes a moonshot in the coming years, purchasing power will be far more limited than most can imagine. The liquidity crunch we are moving into will cause the same kind of economic seizure as we saw in the depression, when a lack of money alone made it exceptionally difficult to connect buyers and sellers, or producers and potential consumers. Money is the lubricant in the engine of the economy in the same way that oil is the lubricant in the engine of your car. Running an engine with too little lubricant will cause it to grind to a halt.

The ‘assistance’ currently being provided in the form of downpayments is only going to make the situation worse in the long run. Bailouts are never for the little guy. Offering inducements to further indebtedness is merely a trap. It will do nothing but increase the pool of future debt slaves. This is not a benefit for the people it is ostensibly aimed at. Instead it is a cynical move intended to keep our game of extend-and-pretend going a little longer. Rising unemployment will cruelly expose the fragility of buying power and the ability to service debt in the relatively near future. Defaults are likely to be shockingly high, and with them losses to Fannie and Freddie.

As John Stuart Mill observed, “Panics do not destroy capital, they merely reveal the extent to which it has already been destroyed by betrayal into hopelessly unproductive works.” The construction of much of suburbia has been a giant exercise in the creation of negative added value. It is this decades-long commitment of resources to living arrangements with fatal structural dependencies that has been destructive of value, and there is a limit to how long we can stave off the day when that will be generally recognized. That is all we are doing in supporting Fannie and Freddie.

[Arraya]

[quote=DWCAP]A) I dont think most people are looking for ANTHER 40% off. Atleast I have not heard it from anyone who is a regular poster (or anyone else for that matter, but I sometimes miss threads). Usually when I hear 40% off stuff, it is in relation to peak prices. So, a house that was 750k ‘should’ be 450k but is still at 550k. (this is what I hear the argument as).
As I understand it, your saying that the argument is the house which is now 550k ‘should’ be 330k, and I have just never seen anyone outside of Zerohedge make such claims.
Please feel free to prove me wrong on this, I only get spotty time on Piggington.

.[/quote]

http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/2010/06/june-16-2010-fannie-and-freddie.html

As longtime readers will know, my forecast for a real estate prices is for a decline of 90% on average, albeit with considerable local variation. For those who think this is not possible, you might want to look at what you can buy a house for right now in Detroit. It is considerably less than the price of a second-hand car, and in a market where the price of second-hand cars is depressed. In places where there is no work for miles around, and no access to mortgages in dying neighbourhoods, the pool of buyers will be limited to those who can afford buy a property in cash and would choose to spend what will be extremely scarce cash on that particular purchase. The price support that will convey will be minimal, to say the least.

As unemployment takes a moonshot in the coming years, purchasing power will be far more limited than most can imagine. The liquidity crunch we are moving into will cause the same kind of economic seizure as we saw in the depression, when a lack of money alone made it exceptionally difficult to connect buyers and sellers, or producers and potential consumers. Money is the lubricant in the engine of the economy in the same way that oil is the lubricant in the engine of your car. Running an engine with too little lubricant will cause it to grind to a halt.

The ‘assistance’ currently being provided in the form of downpayments is only going to make the situation worse in the long run. Bailouts are never for the little guy. Offering inducements to further indebtedness is merely a trap. It will do nothing but increase the pool of future debt slaves. This is not a benefit for the people it is ostensibly aimed at. Instead it is a cynical move intended to keep our game of extend-and-pretend going a little longer. Rising unemployment will cruelly expose the fragility of buying power and the ability to service debt in the relatively near future. Defaults are likely to be shockingly high, and with them losses to Fannie and Freddie.

As John Stuart Mill observed, “Panics do not destroy capital, they merely reveal the extent to which it has already been destroyed by betrayal into hopelessly unproductive works.” The construction of much of suburbia has been a giant exercise in the creation of negative added value. It is this decades-long commitment of resources to living arrangements with fatal structural dependencies that has been destructive of value, and there is a limit to how long we can stave off the day when that will be generally recognized. That is all we are doing in supporting Fannie and Freddie.

[Arraya]

[quote=DWCAP]A) I dont think most people are looking for ANTHER 40% off. Atleast I have not heard it from anyone who is a regular poster (or anyone else for that matter, but I sometimes miss threads). Usually when I hear 40% off stuff, it is in relation to peak prices. So, a house that was 750k ‘should’ be 450k but is still at 550k. (this is what I hear the argument as).
As I understand it, your saying that the argument is the house which is now 550k ‘should’ be 330k, and I have just never seen anyone outside of Zerohedge make such claims.
Please feel free to prove me wrong on this, I only get spotty time on Piggington.

.[/quote]

http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/2010/06/june-16-2010-fannie-and-freddie.html

As longtime readers will know, my forecast for a real estate prices is for a decline of 90% on average, albeit with considerable local variation. For those who think this is not possible, you might want to look at what you can buy a house for right now in Detroit. It is considerably less than the price of a second-hand car, and in a market where the price of second-hand cars is depressed. In places where there is no work for miles around, and no access to mortgages in dying neighbourhoods, the pool of buyers will be limited to those who can afford buy a property in cash and would choose to spend what will be extremely scarce cash on that particular purchase. The price support that will convey will be minimal, to say the least.

As unemployment takes a moonshot in the coming years, purchasing power will be far more limited than most can imagine. The liquidity crunch we are moving into will cause the same kind of economic seizure as we saw in the depression, when a lack of money alone made it exceptionally difficult to connect buyers and sellers, or producers and potential consumers. Money is the lubricant in the engine of the economy in the same way that oil is the lubricant in the engine of your car. Running an engine with too little lubricant will cause it to grind to a halt.

The ‘assistance’ currently being provided in the form of downpayments is only going to make the situation worse in the long run. Bailouts are never for the little guy. Offering inducements to further indebtedness is merely a trap. It will do nothing but increase the pool of future debt slaves. This is not a benefit for the people it is ostensibly aimed at. Instead it is a cynical move intended to keep our game of extend-and-pretend going a little longer. Rising unemployment will cruelly expose the fragility of buying power and the ability to service debt in the relatively near future. Defaults are likely to be shockingly high, and with them losses to Fannie and Freddie.

As John Stuart Mill observed, “Panics do not destroy capital, they merely reveal the extent to which it has already been destroyed by betrayal into hopelessly unproductive works.” The construction of much of suburbia has been a giant exercise in the creation of negative added value. It is this decades-long commitment of resources to living arrangements with fatal structural dependencies that has been destructive of value, and there is a limit to how long we can stave off the day when that will be generally recognized. That is all we are doing in supporting Fannie and Freddie.

[Arraya]

[quote=DWCAP]A) I dont think most people are looking for ANTHER 40% off. Atleast I have not heard it from anyone who is a regular poster (or anyone else for that matter, but I sometimes miss threads). Usually when I hear 40% off stuff, it is in relation to peak prices. So, a house that was 750k ‘should’ be 450k but is still at 550k. (this is what I hear the argument as).
As I understand it, your saying that the argument is the house which is now 550k ‘should’ be 330k, and I have just never seen anyone outside of Zerohedge make such claims.
Please feel free to prove me wrong on this, I only get spotty time on Piggington.

.[/quote]

http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/2010/06/june-16-2010-fannie-and-freddie.html

As longtime readers will know, my forecast for a real estate prices is for a decline of 90% on average, albeit with considerable local variation. For those who think this is not possible, you might want to look at what you can buy a house for right now in Detroit. It is considerably less than the price of a second-hand car, and in a market where the price of second-hand cars is depressed. In places where there is no work for miles around, and no access to mortgages in dying neighbourhoods, the pool of buyers will be limited to those who can afford buy a property in cash and would choose to spend what will be extremely scarce cash on that particular purchase. The price support that will convey will be minimal, to say the least.

As unemployment takes a moonshot in the coming years, purchasing power will be far more limited than most can imagine. The liquidity crunch we are moving into will cause the same kind of economic seizure as we saw in the depression, when a lack of money alone made it exceptionally difficult to connect buyers and sellers, or producers and potential consumers. Money is the lubricant in the engine of the economy in the same way that oil is the lubricant in the engine of your car. Running an engine with too little lubricant will cause it to grind to a halt.

The ‘assistance’ currently being provided in the form of downpayments is only going to make the situation worse in the long run. Bailouts are never for the little guy. Offering inducements to further indebtedness is merely a trap. It will do nothing but increase the pool of future debt slaves. This is not a benefit for the people it is ostensibly aimed at. Instead it is a cynical move intended to keep our game of extend-and-pretend going a little longer. Rising unemployment will cruelly expose the fragility of buying power and the ability to service debt in the relatively near future. Defaults are likely to be shockingly high, and with them losses to Fannie and Freddie.

As John Stuart Mill observed, “Panics do not destroy capital, they merely reveal the extent to which it has already been destroyed by betrayal into hopelessly unproductive works.” The construction of much of suburbia has been a giant exercise in the creation of negative added value. It is this decades-long commitment of resources to living arrangements with fatal structural dependencies that has been destructive of value, and there is a limit to how long we can stave off the day when that will be generally recognized. That is all we are doing in supporting Fannie and Freddie.

[ctr70]

I’m in the market to buy right now and literally a few minutes ago I just called on a short sale listing and the listing agent told me the property is now going to trustee sale auction Monday because ***Wells Fargo is NOT doing any more extensions***. So this sounds like a trend.

One can only hope we are going to start moving back to some kind of sane free market normalcy and the banks will just foreclose if people don’t pay their mortgage. Just like the good old days.

[ctr70]

I’m in the market to buy right now and literally a few minutes ago I just called on a short sale listing and the listing agent told me the property is now going to trustee sale auction Monday because ***Wells Fargo is NOT doing any more extensions***. So this sounds like a trend.

One can only hope we are going to start moving back to some kind of sane free market normalcy and the banks will just foreclose if people don’t pay their mortgage. Just like the good old days.

[ctr70]

I’m in the market to buy right now and literally a few minutes ago I just called on a short sale listing and the listing agent told me the property is now going to trustee sale auction Monday because ***Wells Fargo is NOT doing any more extensions***. So this sounds like a trend.

One can only hope we are going to start moving back to some kind of sane free market normalcy and the banks will just foreclose if people don’t pay their mortgage. Just like the good old days.

[ctr70]

I’m in the market to buy right now and literally a few minutes ago I just called on a short sale listing and the listing agent told me the property is now going to trustee sale auction Monday because ***Wells Fargo is NOT doing any more extensions***. So this sounds like a trend.

One can only hope we are going to start moving back to some kind of sane free market normalcy and the banks will just foreclose if people don’t pay their mortgage. Just like the good old days.

[Author]

Posts