Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 6, 2012 at 11:28 AM in reply to: OT: Harvard Cheaper than Cal State – So Guess what CA Lawmakers are Doing? #739386
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=pri_dk][quote=bearishgurl][quote=pri_dk][quote=bearishgurl]The Piggs want to be able to “analyze” these “nuances” to decide for themselves whether your client’s “nuances” are any more legitimate or “worthy” than the rest of our “nuances.”[/quote]
Nah, we don’t.[/quote]
I take it you’re speaking for yourself??[/quote]
No.
But you are.[/quote]
Who else, then, are you “speaking for” here besides yourself, pri-dk?
Participant[quote=pri_dk][quote=bearishgurl]The Piggs want to be able to “analyze” these “nuances” to decide for themselves whether your client’s “nuances” are any more legitimate or “worthy” than the rest of our “nuances.”[/quote]
Nah, we don’t.[/quote]
I take it you’re speaking for yourself??
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]I never said they wouldnt walk away. In full disclosure, I did say they were less likely to walk and had more invested in remaining a part of their communities both of which have proven true. Again things are not so B&W as people around here would have them particularly those of very analytical minds. There is a ton of nuance in the world.
I think I made it pretty clear that those folks didnt have to walk away. They had choices, they weighed the pros vs cons and made the best decisions they could going forward.[/quote]
sdr, why don’t you describe for us some of the typical “nuances” some or all of your “well-employed” SS clients utilized for reasons for letting their (supposedly good) credit go to sh!t and strategically selling short or “walking away.”
It seems as though every property owner has the same problem (unless owning in a very “old money” area such as MH or parts of PL or LJ). The Piggs want to be able to “analyze” these “nuances” to decide for themselves whether your client’s “nuances” are any more legitimate or “worthy” than the rest of our “nuances.”
ParticipantI think I’m going to go find me a “pea brain” this summer (in San Marcos??) to take their free-and-clear luxury SUV off their hands so they can get some moving $$. I’ve been needing an AWD/4WD vehicle for a few years now.
You’re right TG . . . time to make a deal!
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]…When (“these people”) go to rent a house they want something nice and have the income to pay for it. They are not getting handouts.
For these folks it has nothing to do with entitlement. They want a nice place to live and can afford to pay for one. If they made stupid mistakes it was buying into an overpriced market. If you are going to call them that I have no problem there. Just make sure to look in the mirror and call that guy stupid too.[/quote] (clarification added)
Unfortunately, “these people’s” credit SUCKS, regardless of their current income. In addition, most of “these people” have a high consumer debtload and a potential landlord has to ask themselves how they got into that pickle upon analyzing their rental applications.
*****************
LOL, sdr makes it sound as if the typical “pea brain” (his typical “RE client?”) is simply a victim of “millenium-boom” buying. Nothing could be further from the truth. 80% of “these people” are “victims” (lol) of their OWN “cash-out” refi and serial HELOCing, whether or not they were actually “millenium-boom buyers.”
paramount doesn’t need to “look in the mirror.” He states he bought 10 years ago (2002?). He shouldn’t be a likely victim of “these people” but alas . . . he is . . . as are many millions more of homeowners just like him.
Participant[quote=paramount][quote=sdrealtor]In a market like Temecula there should be a very good pool of tenants as long as you have a nice newer home. There are lots of well employed folks up there that had to walk away from deeply underwater homes. I know firefighters, teachers, doctors, nurses, policeman, retirees on good pensions and yes Realtors who have done so. With the exception of the realtors they all have great recession proof incomes. What they dont have any more is good enough credit to buy homes so they will be renters for many years to come. If they could buy they would be buying some of the nicest homes up there but they cant. Thats why they dont want paramount’s smallish old house. They want nice newer homes in places like Wolf Creek and Harveston as rentals.[/quote]
The paragraph above illustrates perfectly the pandemic disease of materialism that exists in southern California.
A nice newer home? What is a newer home? If a home is 10 years old, should it be torn down and replaced with a new home? Are homes like cars now, after 5 years/100k time to get rid of it? This mentality makes no sense to me. Older homes often have better locations; perfect examples of this are Wolf Creek and particularly Harveston (both newer homes/communities in less desirable locations).
And these so-called well employed people are the primary reason I’m so underwater, not to mention the considerable damage they’ve done to the economy.
They should never be allowed to own a house again, but we all know it’s just about as easy to get a mortgage now as it was 7 years ago. They win, I lose. Well not quite, because I have no intention of letting those fools take me down with them.
What these so-called well employed fools need is a reality check. But they feel entitled to a McMansion.
Yah, I want a house in Morgan Hill looking down on the proletariat – but of course I live within my means so I don’t.
Pea Brains (these ‘well employed’ people).
Did I just say that out loud?[/quote]
Excellent post, paramount! And bear in mind that the only people who have thus far made any “decent” money out of these “strategic-defaulting pea-brains” are “realtors!!”
All other homeowners have taken a big hit for these “pea-brains'” arrogance, stupidity and sense of entitlement. This will continue to occur until these lenders (esp the Big Banks) get wise to them and promptly foreclose on the 111th or 141st day after the first missed payment.
How much “underwater” does a typical “pea-brain” have to be for their lenders to call it a day and do what they should have done from the beginning …. FORECLOSE! Does being 100% underwater (owe $1M and their property worth $500K on a bright sunny day) qualify?? HOW are these many thousands of home-debtors now going to “catch up?” Ever heard of any lenders taking $400K+ short in a “short sale” when the property is only worth $400K??
Acc to my ongoing “independent study,” this appears to be what we’re coming to, Piggs. The amount of current opening bids on TS’s I am currently following are ASTOUNDING given the value of of the underlying security (or collateral). And of course these bids adjust upwards every time a TS is postponed.
Where does it END???
[end of rant]
Participant[quote=temeculaguy]paramount, you are already taking advantage of the pea brains. You are probably living in their house, renting them your old house and driving their car that they leased. All things they just had to have new and couldn’t afford. We need these people, now we need to figure out what they are going to do next, then figure out how to get that too. I’m particularly fond of the wives they couldnt afford any more.[/quote]
Luv it, TG. So true … :=D Except I don’t believe we really still need “these people.”
These discarded “wives” you speak of (no doubt in favor of “big boy toys” and younger models, etc), I’m sure are “fun” to have around. After all, they’ve likely lived lives you haven’t become “accustomed to” yet and KNOW how to party!!
As far as what “these people” (aka pea brains) are going to do next . . . they’re going to go find a rental with a landlord desperate enough to accept their 590 FICO score. It may not be the custom-decorated mcmansion they’ve become “accustomed to.” OR, they can move in mom and/or dad’s back bedroom (if they’re still alive, cooperative and still own the family homestead). OR, if locally unemployed, “these people” will pack their free-and-clear luxury SUVS and a U-Haul filled to the gills for middle America, where a nice used mobile home awaits them in a park with a space rent of less than $200 mo, IMHO.
The above is what “these people” in coastal CA did when they were foreclosed upon PRIOR to the “millenium boom” (commencing 2004 forward). Why should this time be any different??
Participant[quote=sdrealtor] … AS for SW Esco or other areas, the CAR family could also be living in a larger custom home on 1/2 acre plus lot not a tract home. I would also question whether the price differential included at least 6 months of rent you paid while doing a major remodel. Additionally the cost of a major remodel and expansion of the house. Not that you wouldnt have done alot to any property but my guess is the construction bill and rent went well into 6 figures … [/quote]
I agree with this statement but not sure it applies to CAR. The custom property they could have had in SW Esco for same or similar price as the (tract home?) they bought in LC would have likely had more privacy, very mature trees and GREAT bones to work with, thus negating the need for an increased footprint. It very well could have been dated inside (cosmetic fixer) but would have been far less work and expense to make it liveable.
However, is does NOT lie in NCC (“nirvana”) but is a relatively short drive away.
I myself would prefer the more private custom cosmetic fixer on 1/2 + AC over a tract home in nirvana. But that’s just me.
March 3, 2012 at 4:53 PM in reply to: Mira Mesa – 7510 Bannister Ln – 10%+ loss in less than one year #739255Participant[quote=svelte][quote=sdrealtor]Some call the police. FLU stole TG’s crown as wittiest poster.[/quote]
ha ha! there have been some real gems in this thread, I tell you! I have laughed several times! FLU’s last post is indeed a comedy classic!
“ill fated trip” to buy a Dodge Dart among them!!!
Thanks for making tears run down my cheeks, guys 🙂 The comedic relief is appreciated[/quote]
Lol, svelte. Except I wasn’t up there trying to buy a “Dodge Dart” (similar to the one that sdr was driving at the time). I was trying to buy one of these in a pearlized white/gold combination with a “gold kit,” although not so much “tricked out.”
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/164603/1994-lexus-es
With a $16K asking price at the time, it was valued at nearly $19K on the kbb and only had 21K miles on it! The owner had been quite ill for while and had left it garaged.
I ended up buying a luxury sedan soon after ….
I’ve never owned a Dodge. You must be confusing me with sdr’s vehicle preferences.
March 3, 2012 at 4:44 PM in reply to: Mira Mesa – 7510 Bannister Ln – 10%+ loss in less than one year #739254Participant[quote=ocrenter]…Now it all make sense. It is always important to step into other peoples shoes, in this case, the shoes just happen to be stuck couple of decades prior.[/quote]
The shoes aren’t “stuck.” They are just very durable and have a l-o-o-o-o-ng memory (which serves them very well on occasion) :=]
March 3, 2012 at 4:03 PM in reply to: Mira Mesa – 7510 Bannister Ln – 10%+ loss in less than one year #739252Participant[quote=flu]First off… Sayonara, is something you say to someone that is a Jap… I’m not a Jap. I’m a Chink… So more appropriately, it would be “Nei Hao” for hello and “zà i jià n” for goodbye… That’s just what chinks say…Unless you happen to want to express just about every single possible frustration, which is then “Ay-yah!” (which would be almost the equivalent of oy vey)… So to express how devolved this thread has become, one would say “Ay-yah, what the fvck”?[/quote]
flu, I wasn’t really thinking about what Nationality you were (or weren’t) when I wrote, “Sayonara,” lol …
[quote=flu]Obviously, you’re really knowledgeable in C(hula) V(ista), so I’m sure you can give be numerous examples of how well rentals down there are cashflowing very well for you personally. I ask, because I want to learn…..[/quote]
flu, I do not currently own any rentals but have had them in the past: one duplex, one SFR with granny flat and one commercial workshop. However, none were in CV (all caps). I AM, however, familiar with the circumstances of several rental SFR’s around me in CV, however. The rental range is about $1600 to $1850 mo and they range from 1175 to abt 1700 sf in size. Year built is 1947 to 1961. HOWEVER, the owners are ALL seniors who are keeping the properties in their trusts. One property has about $32K owing on it and the others are free and clear. So, of course, they are ALL using the properties for a retirement income stream. ALL of the owners live within 3 miles of their rental and manage themselves. One of them is managed by the owner’s 64 yo son. So what’s happening around me is really of no help to a potential investor who will take out a mtg except to say that these properties can now be purchased for about $265K to $330K.
[quote=flu]I don’t care about the emotional side of cities, houses, etc at this point. You can call Carmel Valley a prostitute wasteland or what have you, Mira Mesa as Mira Messy, or San Marcos as a wasteland, or you can be like what all the santee folks love to cheer about how Santee is the next LJ… Doesn’t bug me one bit…[/quote]
I don’t care either. I’ve heard enough Chula Juana jokes and inferences for the last three decades to last me the rest of my life. The vast majority of them are made by people who have never exited the fwy in CV (all caps). The locals here just shrug their shoulders and enjoy their convenient lives on their larger-than-std lots (many with ocean views) with no MR/HOA :=]
[quote=flu]Everything else is just window dressing for me and my other stream of income: Piggington Weekly.[/quote]
Seriously, flu, if you had the time, you would make a GREAT blogger! Not sure if that “occupation” generates very much income, though. Maybe you should ask Rich 🙂
Participant[quote=Ren][quote=as]Sorry to hear your bad rental experience, paramount. I am worrying about that part, too.
[/quote]His situation is very different from yours. Maintenance issues would seem like a nightmare to a landlord who is barely breaking even. With significant cash flow (which you would likely have), it wouldn’t be so stressful, and you can choose a newer property that won’t have immediate big expenses like heating/AC/roof/flooring/fencing/etc.[/quote]
TG, I just saw your lengthy posting about the large tract sales in 2009 and recent sales of model matches in Morgan Hill. I have a couple of observations.
1. Tenants who are seeking a 1500 sf rental home (such as paramount’s) are a completely different lot than tenants who are seeking a 3100 sf rental home.
2. I can’t tell from your old $330K sold comps because of no pics, but your recent sold comp for $370K that DID have pics shows custom paint & windowcoverings, crown moulding (not sure if that was there orig), stamped back patio, travertine MBR floor, wrought iron room divider and what appears to be a separate gazebo in the BY. And this is only what I could surmise from the pics.
We also don’t know if the 2009 sales were distress sales and if they were dirty and/or stripped with kicked in doors and holes in the walls, for example.
Not only did these (VERY underwater) sellers of the $370K recent sale put their own (or HELOC’d) cash into the property ($25-$30K over the years?) but they ended up short-selling the property for $228K less than they paid in 2006.
TG, how much would one of these 3100 sf models rent for today (if in decent condition) and if purchased today at $370K, would the buyer have a positive cash flow every month? More importantly, do you think there are enough potential tenants seeking rentals in TV who are qualified to rent such a property?
I don’t know but I would think it would be much easier to rent paramount’s (1500 sf) house than a 3100 sf home. It seems like folks who would be able to rent a 3100 sf home would be able to buy it, unless of course, lots of former underwater SD County home-debtors who still have good jobs but lost their properties to foreclosure/SS in recent years are truly flocking to Temecula to rent, as sdr is indicating.
edit: paramount’s Redfin graph for Temecula looks as though values there have remained relatively flat since spring of ’09. Good for TG to have recently gotten out of his PMI! Perhaps his new (larger) appraisal was due to what HE did to his property since he purchased it rather than overall values there actually rising. That was the point I was trying to make here.
March 2, 2012 at 3:05 PM in reply to: Mira Mesa – 7510 Bannister Ln – 10%+ loss in less than one year #739173Participant[quote=AN]What make you think a lot more properties will get dumped on the market in the future?[/quote]
When these lenders stop playing games and begin to foreclose en masse. I am now seeing 1st TD “NOS properties” reflecting opening bid amounts of nearly twice or twice what the property is actually worth on the open market today, due to “cash-out” refis in combination with scheduled recasts of I/O’s taken out early 2007 and prior!
Something’s gotta give and I just don’t see these lenders modifying these “cash-out” home-debtors to the tune of a $400K+ “principle reduction” OR accepting short payoffs this high when they are all lower/mid-tier properties ($350K – $550K value-range). Of course, every month of postponement of the auction yields a higher opening bid amount. The average length of default is about 24-28 mos. It is astounding and cannot last. No sales have been rescinded thus far and the average number of TS postponements in my “collection” is 7 times.
Worst culprit is WF.
March 2, 2012 at 2:07 PM in reply to: OT-Contest to guess the occupant of beautiful new building in RSF #739168Participant[quote=no_such_reality][quote=bearishgurl]
Lol, CAR … I’m still waiting for all these Piggs who think the public sector is paid too much to go thru the application process themselves and then sign all the releases necessary to open up their private lives and credit reports to the PTB so that they, too, can get “selected” to make the BIG BUCKS and eventually become “vested” to collect an unconscionable pension!
Any takers???
Ah …. I didn’t think so … :=![/quote]
The hundreds, if not thousands of applicants for a handful of positions not withstanding.
But let’s play along. I have 20+ years of experience, 10+ in management. I’m responsible for an organization that has dozens of employees. Compensation budget alone in the multi-millions. Capital budget in the tens of millions.
What’s my equivalent role? I’m curious, cuz, I’d be handful of years from retiring from it in the FD if I’d have hired on.
Is having moved like that even possible in the FD?[/quote]
NSR, I’d have to know a little more about your educational background and your current and past (if different) job descriptions or classifications before I could tell you if there is a possible equivalent position you could qualify for in the public sector. Also, what branch of government were you thinking of applying to?
-
AuthorPosts
