Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
DaCounselor
Participant“Also, looking for recommendations for other San Diego neighborhoods that offer city, bay, ocean or mountain views (safe neighborhood and easy commute to city) with house prices under $850K.”
________________________I echo FSD’s recommendation to take a look at Bay Park and Bay Ho, ie: West Clairemont. There are some great streets up there with some pretty tremendous views. You are alot closer to the coast so the ocean/bay views can be spectacular, you get cool ocean breezes, etc. About 10 minutes to downtown. I think you could do pretty well in $850K range and even better next year if you can wait as prices continue to pull back.
Another option is to take a look at the Mt streets in Clairemont – I have been in a few on canyons with excellent canyon views, just not quite the same panorama as you will find on the western hills.
Can’t speak to the quality of schools.
Participant“Also, looking for recommendations for other San Diego neighborhoods that offer city, bay, ocean or mountain views (safe neighborhood and easy commute to city) with house prices under $850K.”
________________________I echo FSD’s recommendation to take a look at Bay Park and Bay Ho, ie: West Clairemont. There are some great streets up there with some pretty tremendous views. You are alot closer to the coast so the ocean/bay views can be spectacular, you get cool ocean breezes, etc. About 10 minutes to downtown. I think you could do pretty well in $850K range and even better next year if you can wait as prices continue to pull back.
Another option is to take a look at the Mt streets in Clairemont – I have been in a few on canyons with excellent canyon views, just not quite the same panorama as you will find on the western hills.
Can’t speak to the quality of schools.
Participant“Also, looking for recommendations for other San Diego neighborhoods that offer city, bay, ocean or mountain views (safe neighborhood and easy commute to city) with house prices under $850K.”
________________________I echo FSD’s recommendation to take a look at Bay Park and Bay Ho, ie: West Clairemont. There are some great streets up there with some pretty tremendous views. You are alot closer to the coast so the ocean/bay views can be spectacular, you get cool ocean breezes, etc. About 10 minutes to downtown. I think you could do pretty well in $850K range and even better next year if you can wait as prices continue to pull back.
Another option is to take a look at the Mt streets in Clairemont – I have been in a few on canyons with excellent canyon views, just not quite the same panorama as you will find on the western hills.
Can’t speak to the quality of schools.
Participant“Why would new investors in mortgages want to support the people who bought last year’s mortgages?”
__________________________I think what remains is primarily a shrunken pool of pre-existing lenders with a certain percentage of shaky loans on the books (again, an oversimplication due to the securitized portion of the business). I’m absolutely guessing but my guess is that we have very few new players with no existing exposure.
Participant“Why would new investors in mortgages want to support the people who bought last year’s mortgages?”
__________________________I think what remains is primarily a shrunken pool of pre-existing lenders with a certain percentage of shaky loans on the books (again, an oversimplication due to the securitized portion of the business). I’m absolutely guessing but my guess is that we have very few new players with no existing exposure.
Participant“Why would new investors in mortgages want to support the people who bought last year’s mortgages?”
__________________________I think what remains is primarily a shrunken pool of pre-existing lenders with a certain percentage of shaky loans on the books (again, an oversimplication due to the securitized portion of the business). I’m absolutely guessing but my guess is that we have very few new players with no existing exposure.
Participant“Why would new investors in mortgages want to support the people who bought last year’s mortgages?”
__________________________I think what remains is primarily a shrunken pool of pre-existing lenders with a certain percentage of shaky loans on the books (again, an oversimplication due to the securitized portion of the business). I’m absolutely guessing but my guess is that we have very few new players with no existing exposure.
Participant“Why would new investors in mortgages want to support the people who bought last year’s mortgages?”
__________________________I think what remains is primarily a shrunken pool of pre-existing lenders with a certain percentage of shaky loans on the books (again, an oversimplication due to the securitized portion of the business). I’m absolutely guessing but my guess is that we have very few new players with no existing exposure.
Participant“Are we all stupid? Or are the investors still lending at 10% down all stupid? It’s one or the other. Even 20% down seems borderline crazy today, outside of Temecula and other places where prices have already dropped by 40% or more.”
_____________________________Current lending standards inevitably dovetail into past loans, don’t they? This is probably an oversimplification, but if all lenders stuck their available credit in a lockbox and froze the market, the result may exacerbate already falling values, thus putting their existing portfolio at greater risk. By continuing to loan money (although clearly not as easily), they act to protect their existing loans. The rub is that they need to avoid making more loans that are likely to go sour and therefore just piling on to their existing shaky loans on the books.
Participant“Are we all stupid? Or are the investors still lending at 10% down all stupid? It’s one or the other. Even 20% down seems borderline crazy today, outside of Temecula and other places where prices have already dropped by 40% or more.”
_____________________________Current lending standards inevitably dovetail into past loans, don’t they? This is probably an oversimplification, but if all lenders stuck their available credit in a lockbox and froze the market, the result may exacerbate already falling values, thus putting their existing portfolio at greater risk. By continuing to loan money (although clearly not as easily), they act to protect their existing loans. The rub is that they need to avoid making more loans that are likely to go sour and therefore just piling on to their existing shaky loans on the books.
Participant“Are we all stupid? Or are the investors still lending at 10% down all stupid? It’s one or the other. Even 20% down seems borderline crazy today, outside of Temecula and other places where prices have already dropped by 40% or more.”
_____________________________Current lending standards inevitably dovetail into past loans, don’t they? This is probably an oversimplification, but if all lenders stuck their available credit in a lockbox and froze the market, the result may exacerbate already falling values, thus putting their existing portfolio at greater risk. By continuing to loan money (although clearly not as easily), they act to protect their existing loans. The rub is that they need to avoid making more loans that are likely to go sour and therefore just piling on to their existing shaky loans on the books.
Participant“Are we all stupid? Or are the investors still lending at 10% down all stupid? It’s one or the other. Even 20% down seems borderline crazy today, outside of Temecula and other places where prices have already dropped by 40% or more.”
_____________________________Current lending standards inevitably dovetail into past loans, don’t they? This is probably an oversimplification, but if all lenders stuck their available credit in a lockbox and froze the market, the result may exacerbate already falling values, thus putting their existing portfolio at greater risk. By continuing to loan money (although clearly not as easily), they act to protect their existing loans. The rub is that they need to avoid making more loans that are likely to go sour and therefore just piling on to their existing shaky loans on the books.
Participant“Are we all stupid? Or are the investors still lending at 10% down all stupid? It’s one or the other. Even 20% down seems borderline crazy today, outside of Temecula and other places where prices have already dropped by 40% or more.”
_____________________________Current lending standards inevitably dovetail into past loans, don’t they? This is probably an oversimplification, but if all lenders stuck their available credit in a lockbox and froze the market, the result may exacerbate already falling values, thus putting their existing portfolio at greater risk. By continuing to loan money (although clearly not as easily), they act to protect their existing loans. The rub is that they need to avoid making more loans that are likely to go sour and therefore just piling on to their existing shaky loans on the books.
ParticipantThat plan would have to essentially be a lender write-down to the current market value of the property and a new loan based upon the new lower balance, as a homeowner who is in foreclosure would probably have a tough time finding outside financing to purchase the property.
The plan sounds like it could be a win-win. The lender may avoid some of the costs associated with an REO/sale and they get their price. The buyer lives for free for a number of months, then gets a nice chunk of their loan written off and lower payments.
There are a few potential impediments to such a deal, including securitized loan issues and lender unwillingness to reward delinquency. But it seems to make sense to do the deal, doesn’t it? Which is probably why it won’t get done…
A twist on this scenario is the potential manuevering on 80/20 purchase money loan packages that were very common here in CA during the boom. Once the value of the home drops down about 20%, the 2nd is toast, at which time the buyer simply stops paying on it. The 2nd then has three options – foreclose (and incur expenses with zero recovery – not likely), do nothing and hope values go back up, or negotiate a settlement for pennies on the dollar. I would imagine that if the 2nd is not inclined to settle and decides to sit tight, the homeowner could go into default on the 1st mtg and thus threaten the 2nd with a complete wipe-out. That may provide the necessary incentive to settle, after which the borrower could bring the 1st current and stay in the home, now minus the 2nd.
-
AuthorPosts
