[cr]

Tanta at calculated risk said it well:

“Alt-A is sort of a weird mirror-image of subprime lending. If subprime was traditionally about borrowers with good capacity and collateral but bad credit history, Alt-A was about borrowers with a good credit history but pretty iffy capacity and collateral. That is to say, while subprime makes some amount of sense, Alt-A never made any sense. It is a child of the bubble.”

As a result fraud was rampant and it turns out, Prime, really isn’t.

http://www.housingwire.com/2008/08/28/prime-foreclosure-starts-surge-past-subprime-in-july/

[cr]

Tanta at calculated risk said it well:

“Alt-A is sort of a weird mirror-image of subprime lending. If subprime was traditionally about borrowers with good capacity and collateral but bad credit history, Alt-A was about borrowers with a good credit history but pretty iffy capacity and collateral. That is to say, while subprime makes some amount of sense, Alt-A never made any sense. It is a child of the bubble.”

As a result fraud was rampant and it turns out, Prime, really isn’t.

http://www.housingwire.com/2008/08/28/prime-foreclosure-starts-surge-past-subprime-in-july/

[cr]

Tanta at calculated risk said it well:

“Alt-A is sort of a weird mirror-image of subprime lending. If subprime was traditionally about borrowers with good capacity and collateral but bad credit history, Alt-A was about borrowers with a good credit history but pretty iffy capacity and collateral. That is to say, while subprime makes some amount of sense, Alt-A never made any sense. It is a child of the bubble.”

As a result fraud was rampant and it turns out, Prime, really isn’t.

http://www.housingwire.com/2008/08/28/prime-foreclosure-starts-surge-past-subprime-in-july/

[cr]

Tanta at calculated risk said it well:

“Alt-A is sort of a weird mirror-image of subprime lending. If subprime was traditionally about borrowers with good capacity and collateral but bad credit history, Alt-A was about borrowers with a good credit history but pretty iffy capacity and collateral. That is to say, while subprime makes some amount of sense, Alt-A never made any sense. It is a child of the bubble.”

As a result fraud was rampant and it turns out, Prime, really isn’t.

http://www.housingwire.com/2008/08/28/prime-foreclosure-starts-surge-past-subprime-in-july/

[cr]

“… as stricter lending terms reduced the number of buyers,”
“…reduced availability of jumbo mortgages…”

This tells me people still refuse to accept how far prices have to drop, or that prices were actually inflated. This sounds like NAR-speak refusing to acknowledge we are in the middle of a severe correction as if prices are being artificially depressed. They just increased the Jumbo conforming limit!

Granted the high end is more resilient, (although far less as the job market continues to deteriorate) and it also didn’t climb as high, but that doesn’t mean prices aren’t inflated and won’t continue to fall.

[cr]

“… as stricter lending terms reduced the number of buyers,”
“…reduced availability of jumbo mortgages…”

This tells me people still refuse to accept how far prices have to drop, or that prices were actually inflated. This sounds like NAR-speak refusing to acknowledge we are in the middle of a severe correction as if prices are being artificially depressed. They just increased the Jumbo conforming limit!

Granted the high end is more resilient, (although far less as the job market continues to deteriorate) and it also didn’t climb as high, but that doesn’t mean prices aren’t inflated and won’t continue to fall.

[cr]

“… as stricter lending terms reduced the number of buyers,”
“…reduced availability of jumbo mortgages…”

This tells me people still refuse to accept how far prices have to drop, or that prices were actually inflated. This sounds like NAR-speak refusing to acknowledge we are in the middle of a severe correction as if prices are being artificially depressed. They just increased the Jumbo conforming limit!

Granted the high end is more resilient, (although far less as the job market continues to deteriorate) and it also didn’t climb as high, but that doesn’t mean prices aren’t inflated and won’t continue to fall.

[cr]

“… as stricter lending terms reduced the number of buyers,”
“…reduced availability of jumbo mortgages…”

This tells me people still refuse to accept how far prices have to drop, or that prices were actually inflated. This sounds like NAR-speak refusing to acknowledge we are in the middle of a severe correction as if prices are being artificially depressed. They just increased the Jumbo conforming limit!

Granted the high end is more resilient, (although far less as the job market continues to deteriorate) and it also didn’t climb as high, but that doesn’t mean prices aren’t inflated and won’t continue to fall.

[cr]

“… as stricter lending terms reduced the number of buyers,”
“…reduced availability of jumbo mortgages…”

This tells me people still refuse to accept how far prices have to drop, or that prices were actually inflated. This sounds like NAR-speak refusing to acknowledge we are in the middle of a severe correction as if prices are being artificially depressed. They just increased the Jumbo conforming limit!

Granted the high end is more resilient, (although far less as the job market continues to deteriorate) and it also didn’t climb as high, but that doesn’t mean prices aren’t inflated and won’t continue to fall.

[cr]

I saw this last night. CNBC is making similar claims here: http://www.cnbc.com/id/26390675

People still clearly don’t understand the market. All these claims of a bottom due to pent up demand are unfounded and ignore the fact that in order to buy a house you have to be able to afford a house, i.e. have stable and adequate income, and now a down payment and willing lender. People are tapping their 401k to pay bills – you think they have $100k to jump into a declining RE market while there is simultaneously a declining job market?

Right, and there was no subprime spillover.

[cr]

I saw this last night. CNBC is making similar claims here: http://www.cnbc.com/id/26390675

People still clearly don’t understand the market. All these claims of a bottom due to pent up demand are unfounded and ignore the fact that in order to buy a house you have to be able to afford a house, i.e. have stable and adequate income, and now a down payment and willing lender. People are tapping their 401k to pay bills – you think they have $100k to jump into a declining RE market while there is simultaneously a declining job market?

Right, and there was no subprime spillover.

[cr]

I saw this last night. CNBC is making similar claims here: http://www.cnbc.com/id/26390675

People still clearly don’t understand the market. All these claims of a bottom due to pent up demand are unfounded and ignore the fact that in order to buy a house you have to be able to afford a house, i.e. have stable and adequate income, and now a down payment and willing lender. People are tapping their 401k to pay bills – you think they have $100k to jump into a declining RE market while there is simultaneously a declining job market?

Right, and there was no subprime spillover.

[cr]

I saw this last night. CNBC is making similar claims here: http://www.cnbc.com/id/26390675

People still clearly don’t understand the market. All these claims of a bottom due to pent up demand are unfounded and ignore the fact that in order to buy a house you have to be able to afford a house, i.e. have stable and adequate income, and now a down payment and willing lender. People are tapping their 401k to pay bills – you think they have $100k to jump into a declining RE market while there is simultaneously a declining job market?

Right, and there was no subprime spillover.

[cr]

I saw this last night. CNBC is making similar claims here: http://www.cnbc.com/id/26390675

People still clearly don’t understand the market. All these claims of a bottom due to pent up demand are unfounded and ignore the fact that in order to buy a house you have to be able to afford a house, i.e. have stable and adequate income, and now a down payment and willing lender. People are tapping their 401k to pay bills – you think they have $100k to jump into a declining RE market while there is simultaneously a declining job market?

Right, and there was no subprime spillover.

[cr]

The problem with blatantly committing fraud even if you initially pull it off is actually qualifying for the bailout, particularly in California.

Everything I read about Paulson’s plan and now this FDIC pre-re-negotiated loan terms basically makes them sound like window dressing.

For the Paulson plan a lender has to agree to lose 10% off of today’s price of your home. Under the IndyMAC FDIC plan you have to prove you qualified for the loan in the first place.

I know a guy who worked at IndyMAC and a conversation with a potential borrower would go like this:

IndyMAC broker: What’s your income?
Alt-A borrower: Uh, around $50k
IndyMAC broker: Yeah, can you get that a little higher?
Alt-A borrower: Well, I guess I could say $100k
IndyMAC broker: Yeah, how about 200k?
Alt-A borrower: Uh, well, yeah, I guess.

I sure hope it puts more downard pressure, because I’m only seeing high teen price drops where I’m looking.

So far.

[Author]

Posts