[DWCAP]

I hope Wells Fargo and the rest of the banks decide to do this. Not becuase itll mean that something like 50% of would be buyers can’t buy now, killing the market, but because it would be the start of actually healing this market. We would have 12-24 Horrible months, a boat load of forclosures, a recession, and revert to the fundamentals that make a solid market. If banks dont do this, we’ll have 60 horrible months, a boat load of forclosures, a revision to fundamentals, a recession and alot of wasted time (plus a bunch of Gov debt). Seems logical to me. But then again there is the whole solvency thing, so….

BTW, How much did the market fall in December? Any bank still lending at a 5% down payment in San Diego should be banned from borrowing from the FED. They are farting away money. ‘Poof’, and all that is left is the stench.

[DWCAP]

I hope Wells Fargo and the rest of the banks decide to do this. Not becuase itll mean that something like 50% of would be buyers can’t buy now, killing the market, but because it would be the start of actually healing this market. We would have 12-24 Horrible months, a boat load of forclosures, a recession, and revert to the fundamentals that make a solid market. If banks dont do this, we’ll have 60 horrible months, a boat load of forclosures, a revision to fundamentals, a recession and alot of wasted time (plus a bunch of Gov debt). Seems logical to me. But then again there is the whole solvency thing, so….

BTW, How much did the market fall in December? Any bank still lending at a 5% down payment in San Diego should be banned from borrowing from the FED. They are farting away money. ‘Poof’, and all that is left is the stench.

[DWCAP]

I hope Wells Fargo and the rest of the banks decide to do this. Not becuase itll mean that something like 50% of would be buyers can’t buy now, killing the market, but because it would be the start of actually healing this market. We would have 12-24 Horrible months, a boat load of forclosures, a recession, and revert to the fundamentals that make a solid market. If banks dont do this, we’ll have 60 horrible months, a boat load of forclosures, a revision to fundamentals, a recession and alot of wasted time (plus a bunch of Gov debt). Seems logical to me. But then again there is the whole solvency thing, so….

BTW, How much did the market fall in December? Any bank still lending at a 5% down payment in San Diego should be banned from borrowing from the FED. They are farting away money. ‘Poof’, and all that is left is the stench.

[DWCAP]

I hope Wells Fargo and the rest of the banks decide to do this. Not becuase itll mean that something like 50% of would be buyers can’t buy now, killing the market, but because it would be the start of actually healing this market. We would have 12-24 Horrible months, a boat load of forclosures, a recession, and revert to the fundamentals that make a solid market. If banks dont do this, we’ll have 60 horrible months, a boat load of forclosures, a revision to fundamentals, a recession and alot of wasted time (plus a bunch of Gov debt). Seems logical to me. But then again there is the whole solvency thing, so….

BTW, How much did the market fall in December? Any bank still lending at a 5% down payment in San Diego should be banned from borrowing from the FED. They are farting away money. ‘Poof’, and all that is left is the stench.

[DWCAP]

I hope Wells Fargo and the rest of the banks decide to do this. Not becuase itll mean that something like 50% of would be buyers can’t buy now, killing the market, but because it would be the start of actually healing this market. We would have 12-24 Horrible months, a boat load of forclosures, a recession, and revert to the fundamentals that make a solid market. If banks dont do this, we’ll have 60 horrible months, a boat load of forclosures, a revision to fundamentals, a recession and alot of wasted time (plus a bunch of Gov debt). Seems logical to me. But then again there is the whole solvency thing, so….

BTW, How much did the market fall in December? Any bank still lending at a 5% down payment in San Diego should be banned from borrowing from the FED. They are farting away money. ‘Poof’, and all that is left is the stench.

[DWCAP]

Breeze,

I am no expert in this. I really have no experience in this, so I can just tell you my opinion. The point of this bill isnt to refi bad morgages from the bubble and put the added risk on the american taxpayer. The point of this is three fold.

1) This is about the apperarence of doing something, this is an election year, and the pols need to be infront of the talking heads telling everyone that they got this one as much as possible.

2) Spurring demand. The idea is that there are alot of people who want to buy, but think price drops are still out there (they are correct) and dont want to catch falling meat cleavers. This is the cattle prod to get them off the fence and buy now, “before they miss the future appreciation.” Remember, CA is expected to see a “mini-boom” according to the NAR as soon as this passes.

3) It is convient that this time line starts at the bursting of the bubble. The worst loans were written in late 2006 early 2007, so dont count. The rest of the truly horrible morgages dont qualify on the basis of income, LTV, etc. This will lower the default rate on the morgages actually purchased by the GSE’s, giving them ammo to make these prices longer term. You didnt think they would actally let the conforming limits fall back to 417000 again did you?

The NAR couldnt get this past congress, unless it is a stimulus to an ailing economy in an election year. However once it is inplace, it is alot easier to “keep the status quo” or “not do anything to hurt the US economy”. And if they get to help the ailing banks and wall streeters by takeing morgages they shouldnt be, that is just improving liquidity right? no harm done…..

[DWCAP]

Breeze,

I am no expert in this. I really have no experience in this, so I can just tell you my opinion. The point of this bill isnt to refi bad morgages from the bubble and put the added risk on the american taxpayer. The point of this is three fold.

1) This is about the apperarence of doing something, this is an election year, and the pols need to be infront of the talking heads telling everyone that they got this one as much as possible.

2) Spurring demand. The idea is that there are alot of people who want to buy, but think price drops are still out there (they are correct) and dont want to catch falling meat cleavers. This is the cattle prod to get them off the fence and buy now, “before they miss the future appreciation.” Remember, CA is expected to see a “mini-boom” according to the NAR as soon as this passes.

3) It is convient that this time line starts at the bursting of the bubble. The worst loans were written in late 2006 early 2007, so dont count. The rest of the truly horrible morgages dont qualify on the basis of income, LTV, etc. This will lower the default rate on the morgages actually purchased by the GSE’s, giving them ammo to make these prices longer term. You didnt think they would actally let the conforming limits fall back to 417000 again did you?

The NAR couldnt get this past congress, unless it is a stimulus to an ailing economy in an election year. However once it is inplace, it is alot easier to “keep the status quo” or “not do anything to hurt the US economy”. And if they get to help the ailing banks and wall streeters by takeing morgages they shouldnt be, that is just improving liquidity right? no harm done…..

[DWCAP]

Breeze,

I am no expert in this. I really have no experience in this, so I can just tell you my opinion. The point of this bill isnt to refi bad morgages from the bubble and put the added risk on the american taxpayer. The point of this is three fold.

1) This is about the apperarence of doing something, this is an election year, and the pols need to be infront of the talking heads telling everyone that they got this one as much as possible.

2) Spurring demand. The idea is that there are alot of people who want to buy, but think price drops are still out there (they are correct) and dont want to catch falling meat cleavers. This is the cattle prod to get them off the fence and buy now, “before they miss the future appreciation.” Remember, CA is expected to see a “mini-boom” according to the NAR as soon as this passes.

3) It is convient that this time line starts at the bursting of the bubble. The worst loans were written in late 2006 early 2007, so dont count. The rest of the truly horrible morgages dont qualify on the basis of income, LTV, etc. This will lower the default rate on the morgages actually purchased by the GSE’s, giving them ammo to make these prices longer term. You didnt think they would actally let the conforming limits fall back to 417000 again did you?

The NAR couldnt get this past congress, unless it is a stimulus to an ailing economy in an election year. However once it is inplace, it is alot easier to “keep the status quo” or “not do anything to hurt the US economy”. And if they get to help the ailing banks and wall streeters by takeing morgages they shouldnt be, that is just improving liquidity right? no harm done…..

[DWCAP]

Breeze,

I am no expert in this. I really have no experience in this, so I can just tell you my opinion. The point of this bill isnt to refi bad morgages from the bubble and put the added risk on the american taxpayer. The point of this is three fold.

1) This is about the apperarence of doing something, this is an election year, and the pols need to be infront of the talking heads telling everyone that they got this one as much as possible.

2) Spurring demand. The idea is that there are alot of people who want to buy, but think price drops are still out there (they are correct) and dont want to catch falling meat cleavers. This is the cattle prod to get them off the fence and buy now, “before they miss the future appreciation.” Remember, CA is expected to see a “mini-boom” according to the NAR as soon as this passes.

3) It is convient that this time line starts at the bursting of the bubble. The worst loans were written in late 2006 early 2007, so dont count. The rest of the truly horrible morgages dont qualify on the basis of income, LTV, etc. This will lower the default rate on the morgages actually purchased by the GSE’s, giving them ammo to make these prices longer term. You didnt think they would actally let the conforming limits fall back to 417000 again did you?

The NAR couldnt get this past congress, unless it is a stimulus to an ailing economy in an election year. However once it is inplace, it is alot easier to “keep the status quo” or “not do anything to hurt the US economy”. And if they get to help the ailing banks and wall streeters by takeing morgages they shouldnt be, that is just improving liquidity right? no harm done…..

[DWCAP]

Breeze,

I am no expert in this. I really have no experience in this, so I can just tell you my opinion. The point of this bill isnt to refi bad morgages from the bubble and put the added risk on the american taxpayer. The point of this is three fold.

1) This is about the apperarence of doing something, this is an election year, and the pols need to be infront of the talking heads telling everyone that they got this one as much as possible.

2) Spurring demand. The idea is that there are alot of people who want to buy, but think price drops are still out there (they are correct) and dont want to catch falling meat cleavers. This is the cattle prod to get them off the fence and buy now, “before they miss the future appreciation.” Remember, CA is expected to see a “mini-boom” according to the NAR as soon as this passes.

3) It is convient that this time line starts at the bursting of the bubble. The worst loans were written in late 2006 early 2007, so dont count. The rest of the truly horrible morgages dont qualify on the basis of income, LTV, etc. This will lower the default rate on the morgages actually purchased by the GSE’s, giving them ammo to make these prices longer term. You didnt think they would actally let the conforming limits fall back to 417000 again did you?

The NAR couldnt get this past congress, unless it is a stimulus to an ailing economy in an election year. However once it is inplace, it is alot easier to “keep the status quo” or “not do anything to hurt the US economy”. And if they get to help the ailing banks and wall streeters by takeing morgages they shouldnt be, that is just improving liquidity right? no harm done…..

[DWCAP]

From the prior posts (mostly landlords or would be landlords) is that prices in San Diego are going up, with this site as a better, but not perfect, source of information. Two things,
First, it seems high. I am not saying that you cant find prices like that, but that I doubt it is capturing alot of smaller rental places (in terms of number) which will be the first to feel the slow down. Just like housing prices, watching the largest and best organized rentals (ala CV, 4S, LJ in the buying market) as a sign of the health of the rental market is dangerous, because any pain will show up in the lowest segments (chulaV, eastlake)of the market first.

Second, the month over month seems to have alot of red. Click on San Diego Proper, it breaks it down by zipcode and the month over month isnt showing alot of growth. Add into that the hard hit zipcodes of 92154 and 91911, Ie chula vista, are showing some of the highest rental increases. 92127 and 92128, even 92121, are showing mixed to down results. I find it hard to believe that that La Jolla and RB are suffering while Chula Vista is seeing some of the highest appreciation. More likely this is based off asking prices, not those which are actually renting. ALot of people in Chula Vista NEED to raise to keep up with their investments, so prices are recording as going up.
On the otherside, people in these areas are losing more houses, so demand MAY be higher in these areas (why pay 1650 in Chula South, when you can pay 1700 in Clairmont and work in LJ?) If true, that wont last forever.

Not saying that prices are not going up on rentals, just watchout about numbers like this. Housing prices were going up in 2006 too remember?

[DWCAP]

From the prior posts (mostly landlords or would be landlords) is that prices in San Diego are going up, with this site as a better, but not perfect, source of information. Two things,
First, it seems high. I am not saying that you cant find prices like that, but that I doubt it is capturing alot of smaller rental places (in terms of number) which will be the first to feel the slow down. Just like housing prices, watching the largest and best organized rentals (ala CV, 4S, LJ in the buying market) as a sign of the health of the rental market is dangerous, because any pain will show up in the lowest segments (chulaV, eastlake)of the market first.

Second, the month over month seems to have alot of red. Click on San Diego Proper, it breaks it down by zipcode and the month over month isnt showing alot of growth. Add into that the hard hit zipcodes of 92154 and 91911, Ie chula vista, are showing some of the highest rental increases. 92127 and 92128, even 92121, are showing mixed to down results. I find it hard to believe that that La Jolla and RB are suffering while Chula Vista is seeing some of the highest appreciation. More likely this is based off asking prices, not those which are actually renting. ALot of people in Chula Vista NEED to raise to keep up with their investments, so prices are recording as going up.
On the otherside, people in these areas are losing more houses, so demand MAY be higher in these areas (why pay 1650 in Chula South, when you can pay 1700 in Clairmont and work in LJ?) If true, that wont last forever.

Not saying that prices are not going up on rentals, just watchout about numbers like this. Housing prices were going up in 2006 too remember?

[DWCAP]

From the prior posts (mostly landlords or would be landlords) is that prices in San Diego are going up, with this site as a better, but not perfect, source of information. Two things,
First, it seems high. I am not saying that you cant find prices like that, but that I doubt it is capturing alot of smaller rental places (in terms of number) which will be the first to feel the slow down. Just like housing prices, watching the largest and best organized rentals (ala CV, 4S, LJ in the buying market) as a sign of the health of the rental market is dangerous, because any pain will show up in the lowest segments (chulaV, eastlake)of the market first.

Second, the month over month seems to have alot of red. Click on San Diego Proper, it breaks it down by zipcode and the month over month isnt showing alot of growth. Add into that the hard hit zipcodes of 92154 and 91911, Ie chula vista, are showing some of the highest rental increases. 92127 and 92128, even 92121, are showing mixed to down results. I find it hard to believe that that La Jolla and RB are suffering while Chula Vista is seeing some of the highest appreciation. More likely this is based off asking prices, not those which are actually renting. ALot of people in Chula Vista NEED to raise to keep up with their investments, so prices are recording as going up.
On the otherside, people in these areas are losing more houses, so demand MAY be higher in these areas (why pay 1650 in Chula South, when you can pay 1700 in Clairmont and work in LJ?) If true, that wont last forever.

Not saying that prices are not going up on rentals, just watchout about numbers like this. Housing prices were going up in 2006 too remember?

[DWCAP]

From the prior posts (mostly landlords or would be landlords) is that prices in San Diego are going up, with this site as a better, but not perfect, source of information. Two things,
First, it seems high. I am not saying that you cant find prices like that, but that I doubt it is capturing alot of smaller rental places (in terms of number) which will be the first to feel the slow down. Just like housing prices, watching the largest and best organized rentals (ala CV, 4S, LJ in the buying market) as a sign of the health of the rental market is dangerous, because any pain will show up in the lowest segments (chulaV, eastlake)of the market first.

Second, the month over month seems to have alot of red. Click on San Diego Proper, it breaks it down by zipcode and the month over month isnt showing alot of growth. Add into that the hard hit zipcodes of 92154 and 91911, Ie chula vista, are showing some of the highest rental increases. 92127 and 92128, even 92121, are showing mixed to down results. I find it hard to believe that that La Jolla and RB are suffering while Chula Vista is seeing some of the highest appreciation. More likely this is based off asking prices, not those which are actually renting. ALot of people in Chula Vista NEED to raise to keep up with their investments, so prices are recording as going up.
On the otherside, people in these areas are losing more houses, so demand MAY be higher in these areas (why pay 1650 in Chula South, when you can pay 1700 in Clairmont and work in LJ?) If true, that wont last forever.

Not saying that prices are not going up on rentals, just watchout about numbers like this. Housing prices were going up in 2006 too remember?

[DWCAP]

From the prior posts (mostly landlords or would be landlords) is that prices in San Diego are going up, with this site as a better, but not perfect, source of information. Two things,
First, it seems high. I am not saying that you cant find prices like that, but that I doubt it is capturing alot of smaller rental places (in terms of number) which will be the first to feel the slow down. Just like housing prices, watching the largest and best organized rentals (ala CV, 4S, LJ in the buying market) as a sign of the health of the rental market is dangerous, because any pain will show up in the lowest segments (chulaV, eastlake)of the market first.

Second, the month over month seems to have alot of red. Click on San Diego Proper, it breaks it down by zipcode and the month over month isnt showing alot of growth. Add into that the hard hit zipcodes of 92154 and 91911, Ie chula vista, are showing some of the highest rental increases. 92127 and 92128, even 92121, are showing mixed to down results. I find it hard to believe that that La Jolla and RB are suffering while Chula Vista is seeing some of the highest appreciation. More likely this is based off asking prices, not those which are actually renting. ALot of people in Chula Vista NEED to raise to keep up with their investments, so prices are recording as going up.
On the otherside, people in these areas are losing more houses, so demand MAY be higher in these areas (why pay 1650 in Chula South, when you can pay 1700 in Clairmont and work in LJ?) If true, that wont last forever.

Not saying that prices are not going up on rentals, just watchout about numbers like this. Housing prices were going up in 2006 too remember?

[Author]

Posts