[bearishgurl]

SMH, for a more complete understanding of your situation, I’ve taken the liberty of placing your earlier original post and thread re: this issue here.

http://piggington.com/new_when_does_it_make_financial_sense_to_dump_my_house

Submitted by SellingMyHome on November 20, 2009 – 12:17pm

. . .

My story:

Bought a house in Lakeside (92040 zip) in 2003 for a little over $400,000. Since then in 2006 or so, I did a refi with about $15,000 cash out (all of which went in to fixing up the house, not for new BMW’s). So, that means we have a recourse loan. Actually got out of an 80/20 in 2005, then refi’d in 2006. Closing costs were always rolled in, so total owed got higher! Can you believe the banks do that? My house actually appraised for over $600K during my last refi!

We currently owe about $450K, can get about $350K after realtor fees. That means we are hoping for a $100K forgiveness.

Current mortgage and Property tax add up to $3,300/month. Total household income is about $120K, and I estimate we save about $900 month with the interest deductions, so would need to rent for less than $2,300 to make it work. We could easily find a place for less than that that suites our needs.

Why do we want out? Like 23109VC, we need a bigger place, and hate to see houses going so cheaply. We could easily buy a bigger and newer house for the same as we owe, or a little more. Also, a neighbor recently converted their house into a nursing home. This has upset my wife a lot! We’re not sure if it will just be the infirm elderly, or worse, halfway house type folks.

Can we afford what we have? Yes, but with two kids under four, we have saved absolutley nothing in the last four years, and have actually been dipping further into our credit cards. I have a great pension at work, and wife contributes to her 401K. Sadly though, we have no savings in case of emergency.

SO, my questions is: Is it financially smart to get out, rent, wait out the hit to the credit for the short sale, and buy in a few years? Should be able to save enough for a 10% down then. Also, will have more money each month with higher income, school loan paid off, and one less car payment. . .

SMH, From what I’m seeing here and from subsequent posts on the same thread is that, while a “homeowner,” you refied at least twice, the 2nd refi reconveying a 1st TD and also a non-purchase-money 2nd TD (ostensibly spent on property improvements only). Please correct me if I have this wrong.

I have few questions here for you … to gain a complete understanding of your then-situation …

1) What what the total amount forgiven in your (2010) “short sale?” Did you only have ONE lender at the time of closing your “short sale?”

2) Did you purchase the “shorted” property in 2003 with one mortgage only or two mortgages?

3) What was the percentage of your downpayment in 2003?

4) Was your purchase-money mtg (orig 2003 mtg) a VA, FHA or conventional mtg?

5) Was your “shorted” mtg a VA, FHA or conventional mtg?

6) How many actual times did you refi this property? Do those times include the time you took out the $15K 2nd TD which you state you used for improvements to the property?

7) What was your FICO score at the time you purchased the property you sold short?

8) Since you state your (current?) FICO score is in the “low 700’s,” what (fixed) rate and terms do you think you can expect to obtain today if you were to try to obtain another purchase-money mtg?

9) What is your current price range for a new home?

10) What type of mtg do you now hope to qualify for to purchase a property today (ie VA/FHA/Conv)?

11) What is the percentage of downpayment you now plan to use if you are able to purchase?

12) At the time you decided to “walk” on your old property, did you think that “Lakeside 92040” was somehow a bad place to raise a family or had “bad schools?” And, if so, if you planned on having kids when you bought the Lakeside property, why did you even buy there in the first place?

13) You state the house was too small. If you knew you were planning on raising a family there, then why didn’t you purchase something bigger (or use your “cash-out” equity to add more square footage)?

14) What was the lot size of the property you sold short? If over 10K sf, do you think you can now afford to purchase a property with that size lot?

15) Hypothetically, had you NEVER refied and/or took “cash out” and kept making payments and DID NOT sell short, do you think you will still be underwater today? If so, by how much?

16) Are you aware that permits for “board and care” and “group homes” of every kind are obtained by owners in EVERY part of the SD County (even areas encumbered by HOAs) and in areas of ALL price levels?

17) In hindsight, if your FICO score dropped at least 150 points by selling short, do you now think it was “worth it” to do so, given the much tougher lending standards of today?

****************************************

SMH, it just seems a little odd to me that you should have been as “underwater” as you have stated from a 2003 purchase unless . . .

-you put little to nothing down when purchasing it;

-you paid far MORE for it than the nearby “sold comps” at the time you purchased;

-you had an interest rate above 7% on your purchase-money note (and possibly subsequent notes encumbered by 1st TDs) or were paying I/O on one or more mtgs encumbering this property;

-you repeatedly refied “cash out” along the way (whether thru refi, 2nd TD or HELOC);

-you signed up for points and a lot of junk fees with each “refi”;

I understand you decided to exercise your legal right to walk away and that you are not alone.

If there is any more light you can shed on your “story,” it would be very instructive and informative for the Piggs.

And no, I didn’t post this to try to solicit biz…

[bearishgurl]

Oh, and, markmax, you ALSO forgot the County Air Pollution Control District.

http://www.sdapcd.org/

Bring ON the “Kangaroo Court” which is ALIVE, BUSY and WELL in SD County . . . ;=D

Just TRY to get your new mfg biz approved by them . . . lol.

[bearishgurl]

Our “currently beleaguered” State of CA . . . is truly “agencied” to death. BRING ON the bureaucrats!

We don’t need another layer from Wash DC who is “out of touch” with our particular problems. We need STRONG CONGRESSMEN/WOMEN who have a GREAT memory and an intimate FEEL for the concerns of the populace of their particular “jurisdictions,” among other traits!!!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=markmax33] . . . Here are the boards in California and there are plenty more I’m sure:

California Air Resources Board
Department of Pesticide Regulation
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
State Water Resources Control Board

Your seawater would be PLENTY safe. He encourages regulation, just not on the Fedreal level. Why do you want to violate the constitution? Environmental regulation is not the powers of the GOV under article 1 section 8 of the constitution. Is it okay all of sudden?

Here is the City of San Diego Environmental department:

http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/deh/

Do you think they are doing a good job? I bet they are? Why do you hate the local agencies and local jobs?[/quote]

markmax, you forgot the ever-present “CA Coastal Commission.”

http://www.coastal.ca.gov/whoweare.html

In the past, it has managed to stymie many a homeowner and business that wished to do something which harmed the environment or gave the appearance of harming it . . . in every way, shape and form.

[bearishgurl]

I’m of the “aging old fart” category and I lift weights 3-4X wk, scaredy. 3 yrs of this HAS made a difference. Keep it up, whatever you’re doing (but don’t “bulk up” (as brian also stated).

[bearishgurl]

UR, I’m surmising that your 5th drink at the “Alibi” is “walking distance” for you? As is the “Starbucks, Mickey D’s and Lalo’s?” donut shop across the street (to start your busy day)??

And you can walk yourself to “burrito shop(s),” too? :=D

In spite of your good company around there (I sincerely MEAN that!), there’s something to be said for being a “UR!”

[bearishgurl]

Thanks for posting that to clarify, markmax. After you stated you weren’t a “local” McMillin, I figured you were from OH, PA, MD or even the South.

There aren’t any HS’s in SD county that are “95% black.” I’m not sure but don’t think LA County or the SF Bay area has any either.

I’ve been to MD many times and have driven through your county to our Nation’s Capitol a few times but never stopped there.

Just keep persevering as you are. You’re doing fine here 🙂

[bearishgurl]

[quote=pri_dk]But how will they know who markmarx33 is?[/quote]

It’s easy. Just “google” him, lol.

http://www.meetup.com/ronpaul-93/members/18725061/

markmax, I have worked on (local) political campaigns before, have walked precincts extensively and have also held political fundraisers in my home. (This was in the “pre-blog” era, lol.)

I for one think you are an extremely eloquent representative of your generation and also think you are doing a “bang-up job” *educating* people here. You will find several Piggs who are set in their ways and “hard nuts to crack” (myself included sometimes, lol).

Your name has a slightly unusual spelling. Are you by chance related to any of the McMillins of a local “South County RE empire” here in SD county? Just curious . . . Thanks, and keep plugging away here – you’re doing great :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ctr70][quote=paramount]Let’s be clear about one thing, I don’t think anyone is saying gov’t workers shouldn’t get a fair salary and savings plan; it’s just that right now what they get is unfair to the rest of us who have to actually pay for their benefits.

For the most part, there is no reason gov’t workers shouldn’t receive benefits on par with those of us in the private sector.

They deserve:

A decent salary
A 401k Retirement account with 50% up to 6% match
A standard medical plan like the rest of us get: $20-$30 co-pays, 4k deductible, etc..

No Pensions
No lifetime medical benefits
Sign them up for social security[/quote]

Excellent post Paramount, totally agree. I’m totally in favor of Gov workers getting excellent pay, excellent benefits, 401k plans on par with the private sector, but NO tax payer supported pensions and NO healthcare for life. Just like in Greece, these have to go. . . . [/quote]

LOL . . .

Piggs, would you consider these monthly healthcare premiums for SDCERA retirees who are ineligible for Medicare as “giveaways, taxpayer-supported or better than `standard?'”

see pg 5: http://www.sdcera.org/newsletters/newsletter_fall_2011.pdf

The reality is that these “offerings” are so ridiculously expensive, even for the cheapest HMO, that only retirees with pre-existing conditions signed up for them because they couldn’t qualify for a reasonably-priced quality health plan on the open market and for no other reason. As soon as 2014 rolls around, I’m sure the current retirees subscribing to these overpriced, inferior plans are in hopes that they will no longer be at the mercy of being gouged from their “government retirement plan.”

The only difference between these plan rates and *exhorbitant* COBRA rates is that they can keep the plan longer than 18 mos!

For many, many SDCERA retirees, these healthcare premiums constitute over 50-75% of their monthly annuity . . . not counting an addt’l premium for any spouse or other dependents they wish to cover as well.

***

The City of SD negotiated a deal with its unions earlier this year

…Under the proposal, San Diego workers would be required for the first time to contribute part of their paychecks toward the benefit beginning in April 2012, when the deal kicks in.
Older workers would still be eligible for a benefit of $8,880 a year when they retire, but would have to pay $1,200 annually while employed to keep it. Other employees would have the option of a guaranteed $5,500 annual benefit at a cost while employed of $600 annually or a lump sum of roughly $100,000 for health expenses when they retire.

The deal also gives the city an out clause by allowing the City Council to modify retiree health care or eliminate it altogether after the first two years…

See: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/may/06/deal-reached-san-diegos-health-care-deficit/

PERS and CALPERS 2012 Open Enrollment info below:
http://hr.sdsu.edu/pdf/Benefit/2012BasicPlanRateComparison.pdf

http://hr.sdsu.edu/benefits/CalpersHealthPlanBenefitsChanges.htm

http://www.calpers.ca.gov/eip-docs/member/health/2012-health-info/other-southern.pdf

FERS retirees seem to have the highest employer participation in their FEHB selections. However, the (HMO) plans themselves leave something to be desired … in comparison with ALL plans, IMHO.

See: http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/rates/nonpostalhmo2011.pdf

http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/rates/postalhmo2011.pdf

Here are the FEHB fee-for-service plans for 2012 – with a still-reasonable employee contribution:

http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/rates/nonpostalffs2011.pdf

http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/rates/postalffs2011.pdf

***

So much for the notion of “fantastic free or low-cost health care for life on the taxpayer dime.”

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu][quote=bearishgurl][quote=flu] . . . Conservation is not profitable for a utility company. If usage actually goes down, they jack up the rates….

Anyone want to revisit your water bill?

Conserve water, and watch your water bill go up: check

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2010/sep/10/water-bills-could-go-again-san-diego-next-year/

Conservation is good for the planet, but not necessarily beneficial to your wallet.[/quote]

flu, if residents don’t conserve water between October and April, their sewer rate could go up dramatically (even double) beginning with the following July’s bill.

This is a GREAT incentive to conserve water during the winter months, IMO.[/quote]

They’re going to go up anyway..[/quote]

Possibly, but they’ll go up MUCH MORE, if you use too much water. This is something each resident can control.

[bearishgurl]

AN, I think you are an anomaly on this Board because you don’t have “grandiose” views of your housing needs, such as buying a very large residence in a newer, heavily-encumbered housing tract. You (and possibly your co-workers who are living on one income) are no doubt living a more “spartan existence” than many here on this Board would likely accept.

And isn’t your spouse actually employed?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu] . . . Conservation is not profitable for a utility company. If usage actually goes down, they jack up the rates….

Anyone want to revisit your water bill?

Conserve water, and watch your water bill go up: check

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2010/sep/10/water-bills-could-go-again-san-diego-next-year/

Conservation is good for the planet, but not necessarily beneficial to your wallet.[/quote]

flu, if residents don’t conserve water between October and April, their sewer rate could go up dramatically (even double) beginning with the following July’s bill.

This is a GREAT incentive to conserve water during the winter months, IMO.

[bearishgurl]

Hey, paramount . . . I’ve taken the liberty of assisting you in your search for a CA position with “plush bennies” and a “retirement plan.” See the following links:

http://www.spb.ca.gov/std678.pdf

http://www.spb.ca.gov/instructions.pdf

http://www.spb.ca.gov/crsq.pdf

http://jobs.cityoftemecula.org/Default.aspx

[bearishgurl]

[quote=paramount][quote=bearishgurl]
All this “plundering talk” is obviously coming from half-cocked ignoramuses.[/quote]

No, it’s coming from those of us who are more than fed up with getting fleeced by gov’t workers.[/quote]

paramount, we’ve had this “discussion” in numerous threads in which YOU have taken part. Here’s one which comes to mind:

http://piggington.com/are_federal_workers_overpaid_avg_123k_it039s_insane

Submitted by bearishgurl on August 10, 2010 – 3:45pm.

I now wish to draw Piggs’ attention to the SF-171:

http://forms.nih.gov/adobe/personnel/sf171.pdf

Just fill it out and get on a hiring list! Hopefully, you too can avail yourself of all these bennies, that is, after you have been “put thru the paces,” up to and including `nine separate interviews,'” and, of course, a thorough background check. What will your neighbors say about you??

Oh, and uh, I forgot to mention the six-month to one-year “probationary period.” Only a fraction of the bennies will kick in before this period is over. During this time, your “future career” could be in the hands of a bureaucrat who has 1/10th of your education and experience, but by virtue of longetivity, connections, knowing too much (or all three of these), occupies the position as your “supervisor.” This is where you will find that whatever you thought you knew doesn’t matter. Hang in there, refrain from pointing your antlers towards anything resembling a headlight . . . and . . . chin DOWN!

Everybody’s got to pay their dues at one time or another. You’ll get through it :=)

[bearishgurl]

[quote=paramount]

Plundering California

…As I document in my new book, Plunder!, government employees of all stripes have manipulated the system to spike their pensions. Because California bases pensions for employees on their final year’s salary, some workers move to other jurisdictions for just that final year to increase their pay and thus the pension. Even government employees convicted of on-the-job crimes continue to collect benefits. Municipalities have adopted Defined Retirement Option Plans, or DROPs, in which the employee earns his salary and his full defined-benefit retirement pay at the same time, with the retirement pay going into an account payable upon actual retirement. And as average Americans work longer to sustain themselves, public employees can retire in their early fifties with their plush benefits…

[/quote]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe some retirement systems in CA are now averaging the top 3 years of pay to calculate a retirement benefit.

Back in the spring, SD’s City Council was considering modifications to its DROP program.

see: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/mar/07/battle-brewing-to-change-controversial-retirement/

…A lengthy court fight led to rulings that gave city leaders the power to make sweeping changes to DROP, but a judge has yet to rule on whether the city can eliminate the program altogether. . . . “It’s not a bad thing to keep experienced people, but what we’ve done is we set it up so that it’s more lucrative to be in DROP than it is to be an employee because you don’t have to contribute to the pension system,” Goldsmith said. “That’s where we went wrong.”…

I don’t agree with soon-to-retire employees being able to use “pension-spiking tactics” to increase their pensions. Nor do I agree with employees being able to “purchase” periods of broken service (where they were not on the payroll for whatever reason) so as to have “continuous service” or to help them vest.

The only public employees that I know of that can retire “in their early fifties with their plush benefit” are sworn staff (aka law enforcement and firefighters). All “general retirees” will not be able to get their full benefit until age 62. If they decide they want to collect their benefit earlier than that, it will be a partial benefit for life, calculated in part upon their age at the time they decide to begin to collect it. This would make sense if the “deferred retiree” was terminally ill or otherwise unable to eek out any kind of a living. Otherwise, why take a partial benefit early??

All this “plundering talk” is obviously coming from half-cocked ignoramuses.

[Author]

Posts