Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
Participantpencilneck, I refer to them as NOD and NOS.
Historically, CA NOS’s followed the NOD’s by 3-9 months, depending on if the loan was a portfolio loan, backed by FF (conv – secondary mkt) or a gov’t program loan such as VA/FHA, CalVet, CHFA.
Very, very few trustors were able to cure their NOD once an NOS was filed. A few used a BK filing to throw a monkey wrench into the works (temporarily).
In tracking CA defaults back in time on select properties (a tedious process), I think you will find that 90%+ were foreclosed on between 111 and 290 days after an NOD was filed. It has only been since 2007 (when the gov’t props began coming out in full force) that defaulted-upon lenders have begun to get lazy and sit on their hands while collecting payments from a name-your-acronym HXXX Federal program, incentivizing them to move slow and do nothing.
I’m still following a few select properties in my zip code which were defaulted upon in 2010 in which nothing since then has been filed.
Now that these squatter or former-squatter trustors are able to play the “modification qualification game” with their lender while squatting or possibly making reduced “modified” mtg payments, you will find many more NODs filed than NOSs. In some cases, you will find two or more NOSs filed on the same property, months or a year or more apart. Even though the latest one has a substantially higher payoff amt that the first one filed, these sales (auctions) are STILL postponed up to a dozen times.
In sum, the lenders themselves are running up their own tabs when they could have taken the property back years ago. Meanwhile, the squatting or short-paying (thru mod) trustor is getting a free or cheap ride so is doing nothing because their credit is shot, anyway, making it harder for them to find a rental.
I coined this phenomenon “lender malaise.”
This situation will continue to go on until the PTB cuts these lenders’ spigot off at which time they will all of a sudden remember the telephone number of their favorite trustee’s office.
August 10, 2012 at 9:56 AM in reply to: Good fact based WSJ article on who pays taxes in America #750011Participant[quote=jstoesz]I may be younger than you all, but I did own that vinyl…I may have bought at a garage sale for a quarter though.[/quote]
[quote=jstoesz]You know what has gotten cheap, music. Long gone are the evil 90’s when a cd cost 16 bucks at At Sam goody. Just reminiscing about that yesterday when I bought a spirit family revival album on iTunes.
[/quote]
jstoesz, based on the values and tastes you espouse here, something tells me that you and spdrun should have been born in another era :=0
August 9, 2012 at 5:51 PM in reply to: Future housing purchase – trading up when rates are higher? #749919Participant[quote=pemeliza]. . . Second, let’s look at mortgage rates. The average 30 year fixed rate mortgage the last week of 1988 was 10.76%. Today’s average 30 year fixed interest rate is around 3.5%. Current interest rates are 1/3 of what they were back in 1988.[/quote]
LOL, pem. Indeed it was 10.76%. At that time, we had a 10% mtg taken out in ’86!
And imagine that! A property in “stalwart” LJ STILL sold for $620K that year while my 4 bdrm/3 ba home in lowly “working-class” SD was worth approx $112K!!
August 9, 2012 at 5:25 PM in reply to: Good fact based WSJ article on who pays taxes in America #749914Participant[quote=Brutus]A $250K a year income can disappear as quick as you can say “pink slip.” I’ve never made anywhere near $250K a year, but if I did, I would save like hell because that job can vanish overnight leaving you with an income stream that looks more like the bottom 10%.
Real wealth is measured in tangible assets (including stocks, etc…), not in year to year income. $250K a year isn’t rich, it’s just real comfortable. However, if the person making $250K puts their mind to it, they can become rich very easily, but they must hold onto that job and invest wisely.[/quote]Brutus, an employee often has no say as to whether and when they will be riffed, laid off or fired. This is why I don’t think it’s wise for young families with school-age children to voluntarily try to live on one income of an employee, no matter how much they make. While most of them tried to financially expand and “grow-into” the raises their “breadwinner” received by upgrading the size of their home and choosing it in what they believe to be a “better” school district, they are in reality just one paycheck away from default and possibly eventual BK. A family making these choices really needs two decent incomes for security and health coverage in case of unemployment or long-term illness of one of the parents and to be able to save money every month.
I think there are a lot of these families in financial distress only because they were unrealistic about the cost of real life and what could happen to them and NOT due to buying or taking out equity at the peak.
August 9, 2012 at 5:09 PM in reply to: Future housing purchase – trading up when rates are higher? #749909Participant[quote=Jazzman]BG, here’s some numbers. I haven’t cherry picked, and these are all “immune” La Jolla and post bubble prices.
Dec 29, 1988 Sold (Public Records) $620,000 Jul 09, 2012 Sold (Public Records) $1,085,000 75% more expensive over 24 yrs
Dec 28, 1999 Sold (Public Records) $650,000 Jul 03, 2012 Sold (Public Records) $1,045,000 60% more expensive over 13 yrs
Mar 01, 1995 Sold (Public Records) $275,000 May 25, 2012 Sold (MLS) $1,110,000 300% more expensive over 17 yrs
Oct 12, 2000 Sold (Public Records) $795,000 Jun 19, 2012 Sold (Public Records) $1,125,000 42% more expensive over 12 yrs
Jan 25, 1995 Sold (Public Records) $375,000 Jul 03, 2012 Sold (Public Records) $1,268,000 238% more expensive over 17 yrs
Oct 10, 1991 Sold (Public Records) $568,000 Jun 11, 2012 Sold (Public Records) $1,275,000 124% more expensive over 21 yrs
Mar 10, 1988 Sold (Public Records) $340,000 Jul 02, 2012 Sold (Public Records) $1,280,000 276% more expensive over 24 yrs
Jun 30, 1989 Sold (Public Records) $530,000 Jul 24, 2012 Sold (Public Records) $1,350,000 155% more expensive over 23 yrs
Jan 20, 2000 Sold (Public Records) $810,000 Jun 01, 2012 Sold (Public Records) $1,335,000 65% more expensive over 12 yrsAv 148% more expensive, av time span 18 yrs. . . [/quote]
Jazzman, I didn’t look at any of your recent sold comps because there were no links provided. They appear to all be equity or “traditional sales” since they were all last purchased well before the boom years.
An avg of 148% over 18 years (didn’t check your math) is only 8.2% appreciation per year assuming all these sellers did absolutely nothing to their properties during the pendency of their ownership . If all of these properties are in LJ, they are all likely 35-80 years old. Doing nothing to a LJ property, even a property owned only five years is NOT the norm in this area. The typical homeowner in LJ likely spends $100K ++ on remodeling and upgrades (windows/roof/exterior doors/landscaping, appls, etc) in an 18-year-long period of ownership. Because the Coastal Commission review is involved to remodel on many of the lots there along with the City (and SDG&E and adjoining owners for overhead easements), it is NEITHER CHEAP NOR FAST to have anything permitted in most areas of LJ.
You’re assuming these owners bought the same homes 12-24 years ago as the homes in the sold comps you are seeing today.
Nothing could be further from the truth. In many cases, these properties have a different footprint and are twice as big as well as highly upgraded over what they represented when they were last sold.
[quote=Jazzman] . . . How do you get to the low to mid six figures, to seven figures in less than two decades …post bubble?! Interest rates? Wages? Inflation? Population? So I don’t think it’s that prices were always high, just things have changed. Perhaps prices weren’t allowed fully to correct? If so, how does that bode for the future? And the biggy …does it mean homes are still over-priced? I rest my case 🙂
Yes, I’m well out of it, but I hope that doesn’t exclude me from the debate.[/quote]
Assuming arguendo that a steady 8.2% annually is too much profit to make on a residential property in SD’s finest neighborhood, what percentage of avg profit per year do you think an owner SHOULD make upon sale?
Let’s take your “reasons for LJ property inflation” one by one … all references will be to buyers of single family homes in LJ.
Interest rates?
If you’re referring to mtg interest rates, why should one assume everyone who purchases in LJ cares about them? What is the percentage of all-cash sales there? And, of the percentage of buyers who DO take out a mortgage, why do they bother doing it? Do they NEED one to purchase the property? Or do they want to write off a certain amount of MID from their income taxes? How many buyers take out a 20-50% LTV mtg for a personal residence in LJ, only to retire it a few months/years later when they receive a stock option payout or don’t need to deduct the MID anymore?
Wages?
Why should one assume that the typical buyer in LJ cares about wages? Are they a worker-bee? Or are they an executive or biz owner or medical/dental/legal professional who is paid according to how many clients they brought in and/or success of the company/firm? How about buyers who are actually royalty from another country or celebrities buying second homes? The list goes on …
Inflation?
Inflation really hasn’t come into the play in the 24-year time period you gave here EXCEPT possibly late 1995 thru 1998 (for San Diego Co RE). This is when SD Co recovered from a few large defense contractors shuttering their doors or exiting the county.
Relatively speaking, $620K in ’88, $568K in ’91 and $530K in ’89 were HIGH PRICES back then!
Even if small fixers, $275K and $375K in ’95 are very, very good deals and reflect the deep RE recession that SD was currently experiencing at that time.
Population?
The population of LJ (SFR’s – not PUDS or condos) really hasn’t changed in 35+ years. There is only so much land there and the prime SFR areas were built up long ago. There is only ONE LJ in the world. Why on earth would anyone expect it to “correct itself??” :=0
******************************************
I have a question for you Jazzman … Was LJ proper where you were looking for a SFR to buy before you got frustrated with the local market there and left SD? And if so, and you had been successful making an acceptable deal there, would it have been the first property you owned in a CA coastal county?
Participant[quote=dumbrenter]Harvey,
Those who can’t do math will eventually have to go to work for those who can.
This is a very good deal that PUSD has gotten into. Hooray to all new home buyers in 4S & other PUSD neighborhoods.
Lets see, PUSD gets money now and promise to pay 20 years from now and even that is at a slightly higher interest rate. What is not to like in this plan?
Of course, I would not be a lender for such a risky idea, but kudos to PUSD for finding suckers to give them money.
Now, if only I could get a similar deal myself!It is sad to see Voice of San Diego joining in this manufactured outrage though.[/quote]
All I can say is, if you live within the PUSD, I hope you’re still a dumbrenter, dumbrenter. If you’re a homeowner/taxdebtor there, I hope you’re planning on getting out while you still can . . .
August 9, 2012 at 2:09 PM in reply to: Good fact based WSJ article on who pays taxes in America #749882Participant[quote=AN][quote=briansd1]An all or nothing attitude is stupid because in the end you get nothing.
Human existence is about incremental progress.[/quote]
But neither of those choices are progress to me.[/quote]I understand, AN. Unfortunately, the world we live in doesn’t always operate the way we want it to.
btw: are you registered to vote in the upcoming General Election?
August 9, 2012 at 1:53 PM in reply to: Good fact based WSJ article on who pays taxes in America #749872Participant[quote=AN][quote=blake]Md. General Assembly OKs income tax increases for $100k earners
Coming soon to CA …[/quote]
Watch out folks, it’s getting quite slippery out there.[/quote]MD is a smaller state but has a LOT of “highly-paid” residents as well as “old money.”
August 9, 2012 at 1:47 PM in reply to: Good fact based WSJ article on who pays taxes in America #749869ParticipantFrom the OP,
You continue to get punished for financial prosperity, hard work & putting your nose to the grindstone… you get to carry the tax burden for the whole county, you don’t get to contribute to a Roth IRA, if you pay your mortgage on time you don’t get any of the goodies the deadbeats get like loan mods, principle reductions, free rent squatting in your house for 3+ years, you don’t get to take the loss on rentals over $150k in AGI, etc…. and it goes on and on an on.
I understand your frustration but you’re failing to take into account one thing, ctr. That is that these “deadbeats” can’t even currently use their credit reports for toilet paper. They’re neither strong nor absorbent enough. But YOU CAN!
I have no doubt that the “fb squat-mod and squat-shortsale party” will be over fairly soon. I haven’t seen actual proof yet but I really believe those who have actually agreed to timely pay on modifications and are still currently doing so will have to pay the piper down the road in the form of “equity sharing” with their 1st TD holder upon sale. The reason for this opinion is that cramdowns have not yet been approved for fannie/freddie-backed mortgages (which were the vast majority of 1st TD purchase-money mtgs made during the boom).
And many of those borrowers whose mtgs were “modified” still have 2nd TD’s which will come due as a balloon payment (if they haven’t already). As soon as the market picks up a little more, these 2nd TD holders will begin to foreclose … ESP if they learn that enough principle was forgiven on a 1st TD and note on a property they are holding a 2nd TD on to make foreclosure worth their while.
I predict most of the “successful loan-mod borrowers” will just walk away in the coming years, especially if their last kid just graduated from HS (usually the sole reason why they got in over their heads in the first place).
It’s not over for the “deadbeats.”
Participant[quote=The-Shoveler]The Director of engineering here lives in Beverly Hills HS district.
He does not send his kids to public school.[/quote]
Yes, a lot of parents residing in “the 90210” can afford to send their kids to the finest private schools in LA and even the state!
This is true with the residents of ALL affluent public school attendance areas in CA.
It’s a free country and even freer if you have a great income and/or a lot of money.
August 9, 2012 at 1:12 PM in reply to: Future housing purchase – trading up when rates are higher? #749863Participant[quote=Jazzman]BG, a willingness to pay does not necessarily mean homes aren’t over-priced. After all, people showed willingness to buy at the height of the bubble, and homes very clearly weren’t worth what someone was willing to pay. Willingness to pay is a concept borrowed from fine art auction houses, where superfluous cash of high net worth individuals is seeking an alternative place to park itself. The same cannot be said of ‘common or garden’ real estate. ‘Deceived into believing’ might be a more appropriate term that still describes the prevailing ethos.[/quote]
Jazzman, nobody’s arm is getting broken, here. Even when the prevailing interest rate on a fixed mortgage was 7.5%, 10.5% or even higher, SD Co buyers were still willing to pay MUCH more for properties situated in coveted coastal areas … condition be damned.
Historically, unless independently “wealthy,” a newcomer cannot expect to waltz into SD Co and have all or even most of their housing wants and dreams filled initially. For a worker bee, this has typically taken at least 25 years for a dual-income couple to achieve, and that is thru selling/buying laterally or a little up several times while still being able to raise a family in the interim.
Perhaps in a state such as TX, a young newlywed couple (w little help from parents/wedding gifts) can buy an exurban Mcmansion on 1/2 to 1 AC straight out of the gate (w/humungous property taxes, lol). Not so in SD Co, CA.
And correct me if I’m wrong, but IIRC, about 35% of 2011 residential sales in SD Co were all cash sales, so the prevailing mtg interest rate had nothing to do with how much people were willing to pay. Granted, many of these sales were “distressed” and so closed at prices below fundamentals but nevertheless, they closed in every zip code.
You can’t change this “ethos,” Jazzman. It is what it is.
And so I understand you were frustrated with the SD Co market …. so you moved away.
It was the right thing for you to do, IMHO.
**********************************************
Ignorant and self-serving buyers buying with 100%+ NINA financing during the “millenium boom” should not be compared to buyers who bought before the boom or after the crash, as these buyers actually had to have a downpayment and “qualify” for financing or pay cash.
The bulk of those “millenium-boom buyers” you are referring to did not care what the sales price was. The properties they made offers on were likely out of their league (before, during and after the boom) and they were shown a way to “get in” by an unscrupulous mortgage broker recommended by their unscrupulous agent. (I know a few like this.)
All these boomtime buyers could envision was “living there.” During this era, some buyers literally moved from Tijuana, their (local) parents’ back bdrm or granny flat, their vehicle or a trailer/motorhome into these homes they could never in a million years actually “afford.”
“Millenium-boom” borrowers (subprime in particular) and “mainstream” borrowers (who bought before and after the boom) are two completely different animals.
Participant“Typical” case in point. Beverly Hills HS (BHHS) was built in 1927 and, although likely rehabbed over the years, its original architecture remains the same today (excepting for a state-of-the-art track/football field, lol).
[img_assist|nid=16548|title=Beverly Hills High School|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=84]
It even has a long-standing oil-pumping tower called the “Tower of Hope” situated on campus. Originally operated by Venoco Oil Co, it predates the building of the school!
Here’s the gym/maintenance “quonset hut” and a the oil tower shown amidst skyscrapers, lol!
[img_assist|nid=16550|title=BHHS “Gym” and oil tower|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=88|height=100]
see: http://weburbanist.com/2010/04/18/school-fuel-beverly-hills-highs-tower-of-hope/
http://bhhs.bhusd.org/index.jsp
It seems BHHS in the 90210 is “good enough” for its resident families whose property values are 3-10 times those of the average PUSD owner and thus its district didn’t see the need to take out a voluminous subprime loan to rehab schools.
Ironically, 90210 and surrounds IS an area where likely THOUSANDS of longtime homeowners’ property taxes are kept artificially low by Prop 13 and there is no MR.
Go figure…
Participant[quote=ocrenter]I still think the biggest issue at hand is how the district can blow $150 million on just a high school. why does the high school need to be state of the art? I think most parents would be perfectly happy having a well constructed new school without all of the state of the art gimmicks.[/quote]
The City Chula Vista finished a brand-new state-of-the-art police station (of “mid-century design”) in 2003 on two city blocks. It has an attached pkg garage big enough for enough squad cars, K-9 vehicles, assorted trailers and employee vehicles to serve a population of up to 300K.
Cost was $66M.
[img_assist|nid=15874|title=Chula Vista Main Police Stn|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=67]
Participant[quote=harvey] . . . There’s a helluva lot of undeveloped land inside the dotted line.[/quote]
Uhhh, harvey??
Have you been out there? Ever tried to build on 430 oversized boulders? Or even get permits to bring utilities out there?
Better to go to Ramona instead …. you’re almost there …
Case closed.
-
AuthorPosts
