Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
ParticipantHarvey and spdrun, what part of “scamming homedebtor” and “working the system” do you not understand, here??
Participant[quote=harvey][quote=spdrun]The criteria are apparently the same (narrower than, but same group) as for existing forbearance. Not sure why Fannie/Freddie would want those homes on the market, unless it’s cheaper to have “owners” dump’em in 5 years than to foreclose.[/quote]
The math is simple: It’s cheaper to have owners keep them than to foreclose.
The principal is gone. Lenders cannot be made whole. For underwater properties foreclosure doesn’t recover anything, it is just more money lost due to transaction and legal costs.[/quote]I disagree. Foreclosure is not “more money lost” if the loan is non-performing. It’s cheaper for a lender to foreclose ASAP and turn around and get “something” for the property (sell it to a flipper for cash?) than to let their trustor(s) squat into oblivion, while letting the property go to waste and defaulting on their taxes and fire insurance premiums severely lowering the value of the collateral.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=dumbrenter]
People put taxes on credit cards? is that even allowed?[/quote]I paid my property taxes last week. I hate, hate, hate it.[/quote]
Ha, ha, I always go in in person and pay a few days before they’re due to get a receipt and avoid the lines (I live very close to an assessor branch).In front of me in line last week was this tall, early 70’s dude who walked up to the counter with a $$$ western hat on and $$$$ western boots on and opened up a zipped leather portfolio. Inside was a business checkbook with 3 long checks to a page. He pulled a sheaf of tax bills out of the right-hand pocket (abt 3/4″ thick) with a “master check” and “itemized” list prepared by his bookkeeper attached to the front of the bills to pay the whole collection of them and handed the whole mess over to the clerk. The clerk said, “Sir, can I get your name, phone number and e-mail address? We’re going to have to have someone in the back personally take care of you and e-mail you with a receipt for each bill.”
He pulled out a business card, gave it to the clerk and was on his way.
He was probably paying in the neighborhood of $150-$200K just for his second FY ’15/16 installment. Just like in the casinos, the “high rollers” get “special treatment” at the assessor’s office :=D
Participant[quote=spdrun]The criteria are apparently the same (narrower than, but same group) as for existing forbearance. Not sure why Fannie/Freddie would want those homes on the market, unless it’s cheaper to have “owners” dump’em in 5 years than to foreclose.[/quote] Some of these owners have already held onto them (as their “principal residence”) thru HAMP for more than five years now. All during this time, this group can’t maintain their property because their income either hasn’t gone up since they were in foreclosure back in ’08-’10 or has gone up very little.
The ones who have managed to “mattress” some of the equity they took out prior to ’09 are obviously still living on it today because very few of these 40-somethings appear to be gainfully employed (unless they are working out of their homes stuffing envelopes) :=0 Thus, they can’t afford to repair/improve their properties.
The longer this game goes on, the worse and worse condition these properties become, causing the lenders who are taking it in the shorts with these “phony 2% mods” to not initiate foreclosure on them.
It’s terrible for the neighbors around these properties who might want to sell in the coming months/years cuz these deadbeats aren’t going to go anywhere. Where they are living now is as cheap as it gets for them.
I don’t see any of these people voluntarily “dumping” these properties in five years … that is, unless they are foreclosed upon. If they moved, they would have to move to a place which would charge then much more rent than what they’re currently paying in their ~2% / 40-year “modified” mortgage.
When I get time next week, I’m going to check on everyone on my local “former-squatter-now-mod list” to find out if their taxes have been paid for FY 15/16. Every property owner around here got a substantial Prop 8 hike this last fiscal year so our property taxes are now quite a bit higher than they were in FY 14/15.
I just don’t see this group being able to keep up with their taxes, either, but that issue in and of itself does not affect my resale value.
ParticipantKEY POINTS ABOUT THE PRINCIPAL REDUCTION MODIFICATION
Seriously delinquent, underwater borrowers must meet the following eligibility criteria:
•
Are owner-occupants.
•
Are at least 90 days delinquent as of March 1, 2016.
•
Have an unpaid principal balance of $250,000 or less.
•
Have a mark-to-market loan to-value ratio of more than 115% after capitalization.Builds on the Enterprises’ existing Streamlined Modification programs.
Eligible population expected to be approximately 33,000 borrowers. Final crisis-era modification program to give seriously delinquent, underwater borrowers a last opportunity to avoid foreclosure while also addressing negative equity remaining from the financial crisis.
(emphasis mine)
I love how the directive infers that these borrowers’ “negative equity” remains today due to the “financial crisis.”
Ummm, no, it didn’t. Many in this group are still “upside down” today because they took large amounts of cash out of their properties on one or more occasions, plain and simple. This is a “PC” way of blaming a scamming homeowner’s problems on “the system.”
However, the group I’m referring to currently owe a helluva a lot more than $250K on their homes and are not currently delinquent (as least not of public record) but have been in the past but either their lender(s) did not actually conduct a trustee’s sale after their NOS was filed and ended up filing a recission OR only a NOD was filed and never acted upon, both due to the homeowner(s) getting accepted into a (trial or trial/perm) HAMP mod program.
So, in short, I doubt this new program will be able to help my scamming “neighbors” …. or even very many CA homeowners at all.
Sorry for taking over your thread, spd. Carry on …
ParticipantI just found this piece dated today, but it appears to be targeting same or similar group as above who may not have even applied for a mod yet:
Again, I’m going to go thru the particulars.
I would guess that the vast majority of homeowners who are currently in the situations described in the link above may have purchased their homes since 2009 (when lending standards were actually in place) and their entire reason for being in default (or nearly so) is due to recent unemployment.
Participantspd, this is the only recent piece I can find on a FF forbearance program. It’s apparently targeting households who are behind in their payments due to fairly recent unemployment.
https://www.fanniemae.com/content/guide/servicing/d2/3.2/02.html
I’m going to go thru it but I don’t see anything about it helping people who ATM’ed their residence to death in the ’00s and are now paying on ~2% permanent mods for up to 40 years and are NOT currently behind in their payments. The latter is who I’m mostly referring to around here.
Someone who ATM’ed their home to death and made off with hundred(s) of thousands of dollars in cash over one or more “cash-out transactions” should not have one dime of their debt forgiven … EVER. The only way they should be able to legally walk away from recourse debt in CA is to give a deed in lieu to their lender(s) and/or thru non-judicial foreclosure.
As it should be.
Participant[quote=spdrun]So FHFA announced the possibility of eventual principal reduction for approx 33,000 borrowers that would already be available for payment forbearance. Long term (few years), that would mean that those houses could end up on the market at the reduced loan balance, vs people being encouraged to stay in them and not sell (with forbearance, the full balance would come due upon sale). What’s the advantage to Fannie/Freddie/the market here, or is this just a sop to 33,000 potential Dummyquack voters in an election year?[/quote]spd, these people being allowed to sell and get out in a “few years” all the while having kept the cash they took out still have their luxury vehicles and their kids got out of college without loans all due to the cash they successfully “stole” out of their property’s (then artificially inflated) value!
So, NO! They should NOT be allowed to get out with any amount of forbearance at all. If they don’t yet qualify for permanent mods, their lenders should be foreclosing on all of them, forthwith. This group has been given wa-a-a-a-y more than enough years at this late date to p!ss or get off the pot.
Do you have a link to provide where you saw this proposal, spd?
The rest of us who kept our noses clean for the long duration have waited long enough for these former squatters and now “near squatters” to be gone so someone more creditworthy could get the property.
Yes, even a “flipper team” who will put in plastic composition wood-look floors is preferable to these slobs.
ParticipantI don’t believe in this because the vast majority of these people removed cash from their residences and bought luxury vehicles, took trips and sent kids to college with the money, etc. They should have lost their homes long ago.
It’s not fair to the rest of us who kept our head down and paid our bills all during the (lengthy) fog-a-mirror-get-a-loan party.
Some of them undoubtedly mattressed some of the cash they took out (“stole”) from their residences and are still using it to supplement their (meager) incomes today, enabling them to work part-time or not at all while paying on ~2% APR loan mods for 40 years.
This proposal enables this huge bunch of scammers to continue to “work the system” while letting their properties go to waste, thereby bringing down their neighborhoods. Of course, since their entire mortgage (with back principal and interest) will come home to roost when/if they sell, they never will sell and there is no incentive for them to sell since they won’t recover anything. They also can’t afford the maintain their homes for the duration …. until they die. That’s too long for people like me to sit around and wait since they are mostly all (opportunistic) Gen Xers. I was hoping to see much quicker foreclosures and different, more financially solvent folks get into these properties who have the means and wherewithal to repair and improve these properties before I put my property on the market.
This group never should have been qualified for a purchase money mortgage to begin with. They’re losers and should be renting.
As you may surmise, I’m “acquainted” with several of these people and my opinion of them is that they are scum.
Participant[quote=Sean19]I am interested in buying a place to live in Imperial Beach. I have a feeling this will be a very nice area in 10-20 years, if not sooner.
Otherwise I would love to live in Mission Valley but it is a little too expensive for me right now.
ANy other area that may be wise to live in now but looking into the future should develop nicely?
Any insights and speculation is appreciated.[/quote]
Mexican sewage polluting Imperial Beach has been a big problem there since the ’80’s. Now that Tijuana has a population of well over 3M people, it’s worse and much more frequent.
http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2016/jan/07/stringers-imperial-beach-polluted-again/#
IB is at the mercy of MX to upgrade their sewer and wastewater systems to accommodate their exploding population in the Tijuana region. Until that happens, RE values in IB will likely go nowhere.
I can’t imagine that a 1/1 in MV is that expensive (if that’s all the room you need). Any Pigg please feel free to correct me if I haven’t been paying attention. I would think there is far more inventory (and competition) in MV than in IB (in the condo market).
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=bearishgurl][quote=FlyerInHi]So, BG, families should tell their people “never submit to a sobriety test and spend the night in jail, mommy and daddy will sort it out in the morning”?[/quote]Well, my kid(s) don’t drink and drive. They do like to visit craft beer bars but there is a lot of cheap public transportation in SF and they know how to use all of it at all hours of the day and night.
If my kids were to be detained in MX or elsewhere out of the country, I have counseled them to say nothing except ask to make a phone call and call me ASAP so I can call the American consulate in that country and send help or even accompany that help (MX). Yeah, if that means spending the night in jail, so be it. I don’t think they have “Miranda warnings” in MX or elsewhere in the world :=0
It’s not a good idea to talk to law enforcement unless you are simply a witness and not suspected of breaking the law. I have told them that if they are brought in as a suspect for questioning, to refuse, demand counsel and allow themselves to be booked, instead.
I copied all my kids’ fancy new travel documents in living color last year when they came to visit specifically for the above reasons (and if they should land in the hospital in a foreign country).[/quote]
Do not talk to the police.[/quote]
Fixed that for you, scaredy. There … you heard it from the horse’s mouth.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]So, BG, families should tell their people “never submit to a sobriety test and spend the night in jail, mommy and daddy will sort it out in the morning”?[/quote]Well, my kid(s) don’t drink and drive. They do like to visit craft beer bars but there is a lot of cheap public transportation in SF and they know how to use all of it at all hours of the day and night.
If my kids were to be detained in MX or elsewhere out of the country, I have counseled them to say nothing except ask to make a phone call and call me ASAP so I can call the American consulate in that country and send help or even accompany that help (MX). Yeah, if that means spending the night in jail, so be it. I don’t think they have “Miranda warnings” in MX or elsewhere in the world :=0
It’s not a good idea to talk to law enforcement unless you are simply a witness and not suspected of breaking the law. I have told them that if they are brought in as a suspect for questioning, to refuse, demand counsel and allow themselves to be booked, instead.
I copied all my kids’ fancy new travel documents in living color last year when they came to visit specifically for the above reasons (and if they should land in the hospital in a foreign country).
Participant[quote=spdrun]Unless he was actually caught DRIVING, he shouldn’t be charged for DUI or fined. Even if the motor was running (who knows, he might not have wanted to freeze to death).[/quote]spd, my experience has been in SD and so I didn’t think of this angle but if the outside temp was in the 30’s or below that night and he didn’t have any heavy jackets or blankets with him, then I can see this as a defense for sleeping with the engine running.
Maybe we should keep this thread in mind to come back to later while this case is followed. Should be interesting and not take too long, since it is a misd … that is, unless his defense counsel keeps continuing his court date. Sometimes they do this while their client attends a MADD meeting, an obligatory 2 AA mtgs and/or the FCP classes in order to look extra responsible before the court with certificates of attendance and completion and have the case dismissed outright. This is only IF the atty thought there was any chance at all of their client being sentenced for DUI. We’ll see what happens here.
It’s still often worth it in CA to go this route if you can afford it, even paying an atty and attending all required “first conviction” mtgs as a “peremptory” measure before making a deal with the prosecutor in order to secure a lesser “wet reckless” conviction or even get it dismissed (if they were not actually driving when arrested). Depending on the value of their vehicle and any points the defendant already had on his/her driving record, they typically save several thousand ($3-8K) on auto insurance premiums over the next 3 years and avoid an SR-22 filing by not having a DUI conviction.
No trial is needed. It’s not that common to have a trial for DUI but does happen on occasion. Not typically with first offenders, though. A trial is often sought by repeat offenders who have a LOT to lose, such as their freedom … ESP if they weren’t driving at the time of arrest, like this young man.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=no_such_reality]This is an interesting study synopsis. http://cclponline.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Identifying-the-causes-of-rising-health-care-costs_DOC-4.10.13.pdf
Basically utilization doesn’t drive cost increases. Branding is and provider market leverage.
That intuitively makes sense when you think about something like prostrate cancers and the all the ads for proton treatment at named place xyz. Regular therapy is expensive at $18k average. Proton runs $38k average.
Care to guess were the demand is?
Diabetes is expensive too, average $80k lifetime charges for someone in their 50s when diagnosed. Add in the percentage of population with diabetes from ’97 to 2013 went from 2.5% to 7.5% and we have a formula for disaster.[/quote] . . . I’ll look at the report from CO that you provided. CO has thin air which can cause enlargement of the heart in sucseptible longtime inhabitants, especially those who live at the higher elevations.[/quote]I reviewed the report and even though two of AK’s main hospitals are “for profit,” I feel that is the only state (of the three in the report) that CO can realistically compare itself to. Part of the healthcare cost problem in CO has to do with proximity to medical care. 5/8 to 2/3 of the state is mountainous and of that portion, the majority of those mtn residents are 25-80 miles from the nearest hospital and up to 375 miles (up to 8-9 hrs drive in the winter and may not be immediately reachable by air) to the nearest trauma center. Most of the small mtn towns only have 0-2 doctors in residence (and one or more of them may be “retired”). If there is a medical emergency in a town which is more than 25 miles from the nearest hospital (on often snowy/icy mtn roads which may be fully or partially closed), then that patient has to be transported by the nearest fire dept or search and rescue vehicle/helicopter to the nearest hospital. “Ambulance” charges can easily be over $2K one way to the nearest hospital just ~25 miles away if the patient cannot be safely transported timely enough by family members or friends. Thousands of (mostly well-heeled) “retirees” from all over the country and world live in these towns. I feel one needs to be in good health to move up there in the first place and also make the decision to “be at peace” with “dying doing what you wanted to do, where you wanted to do it” if you’re hiking or jeeping remotely or even in town when an emergency strikes and you can’t immediately get help. Senior citizens who live up there and develop chronic conditions needing constant medical attention end up having to move to a town (of >15K pop) with a hospital (or even move to a city).
The above (and the likelihood of extreme sports injuries) are reasons why healthplan premiums are very costly in the rocky mtns. I looked into it myself last year and was shocked at CO’s PPO premiums in the rockies, which were $200-$350 month higher than in SD. But CO offers 4-5 different PPO individual plans in that region which is more than double what is offered here.
-
AuthorPosts
