[LesBaer45]

[quote=sdrealtor]I dont necessarily disagree witrh analyst either. I have no access to the loan docs and was not party to that transaction. Whatever happens to the balance is irrelevant in this conversation about shadow inventory because this one was ripped out of that category.

For him, the interest rate was lowered by a few % and the amount he was paying on was reduced by over 30%. HIs payment is less than 1/2 of what it was and will stay there indefinitely. For the owner, its an awesome home (a dream home if you will) that he gets to keep living in at a price well under rental value with a nice tatx deduction to boot. What renter would turn down a rent reduction and news that their rent was now tax deductible? Oh yeah, the rent you didnt pay last year….just forget about it.

My other comment was in reference to his definitive statements of what would happen “if” we only knew what the govt would do.[/quote]

IANAL nor do I play one on the Internet. But it seems to me that such a loan mod if it doesn’t include the “hidden” language for the missing $250K to suddenly become real again at a sale or appreciation (things go back to full retard crazy) would trigger some sort of IRS action. Basically in my currently beer-ed state, that person was handed a $250K gift. It’s no different than a short sale in my misguided opinion. He might have dodged a foreclosure bullet but did he just step into the path of an IRS audit grenade?

[LesBaer45]

[quote=Eugene][quote=jameswenn]I don’t think the person who wrote that has ever really been down here.

I used to think technology was big in San Diego before I moved down here from Los Angeles. Once I got here, I realized that Federal jobs and tourism are the real driver of the economy in San Diego. It’s not publicized because public sector jobs aren’t as sexy as Biotech and Wireless.
[/quote]

Technology is the primary reason why houses in Carmel Valley and Sorrento Valley are three times more expensive than identical houses in Chula Vista.

Silicon Valley and Seattle excluded, I don’t think there is a single place in the country where technology is THE driver of the economy. But it is quite strong in San Diego compared to many other large cities.[/quote]

Granted it WAS the driver. But is it still driving the economy? Or has it left town? (So to speak).

They used to say the same thing about the area I live. They don’t anymore.*

*Except in the usual government sponsored propaganda and real estate pimping media vehicles.

[LesBaer45]

[quote=Eugene][quote=jameswenn]I don’t think the person who wrote that has ever really been down here.

I used to think technology was big in San Diego before I moved down here from Los Angeles. Once I got here, I realized that Federal jobs and tourism are the real driver of the economy in San Diego. It’s not publicized because public sector jobs aren’t as sexy as Biotech and Wireless.
[/quote]

Technology is the primary reason why houses in Carmel Valley and Sorrento Valley are three times more expensive than identical houses in Chula Vista.

Silicon Valley and Seattle excluded, I don’t think there is a single place in the country where technology is THE driver of the economy. But it is quite strong in San Diego compared to many other large cities.[/quote]

Granted it WAS the driver. But is it still driving the economy? Or has it left town? (So to speak).

They used to say the same thing about the area I live. They don’t anymore.*

*Except in the usual government sponsored propaganda and real estate pimping media vehicles.

[LesBaer45]

[quote=Eugene][quote=jameswenn]I don’t think the person who wrote that has ever really been down here.

I used to think technology was big in San Diego before I moved down here from Los Angeles. Once I got here, I realized that Federal jobs and tourism are the real driver of the economy in San Diego. It’s not publicized because public sector jobs aren’t as sexy as Biotech and Wireless.
[/quote]

Technology is the primary reason why houses in Carmel Valley and Sorrento Valley are three times more expensive than identical houses in Chula Vista.

Silicon Valley and Seattle excluded, I don’t think there is a single place in the country where technology is THE driver of the economy. But it is quite strong in San Diego compared to many other large cities.[/quote]

Granted it WAS the driver. But is it still driving the economy? Or has it left town? (So to speak).

They used to say the same thing about the area I live. They don’t anymore.*

*Except in the usual government sponsored propaganda and real estate pimping media vehicles.

[LesBaer45]

[quote=Eugene][quote=jameswenn]I don’t think the person who wrote that has ever really been down here.

I used to think technology was big in San Diego before I moved down here from Los Angeles. Once I got here, I realized that Federal jobs and tourism are the real driver of the economy in San Diego. It’s not publicized because public sector jobs aren’t as sexy as Biotech and Wireless.
[/quote]

Technology is the primary reason why houses in Carmel Valley and Sorrento Valley are three times more expensive than identical houses in Chula Vista.

Silicon Valley and Seattle excluded, I don’t think there is a single place in the country where technology is THE driver of the economy. But it is quite strong in San Diego compared to many other large cities.[/quote]

Granted it WAS the driver. But is it still driving the economy? Or has it left town? (So to speak).

They used to say the same thing about the area I live. They don’t anymore.*

*Except in the usual government sponsored propaganda and real estate pimping media vehicles.

[LesBaer45]

[quote=Eugene][quote=jameswenn]I don’t think the person who wrote that has ever really been down here.

I used to think technology was big in San Diego before I moved down here from Los Angeles. Once I got here, I realized that Federal jobs and tourism are the real driver of the economy in San Diego. It’s not publicized because public sector jobs aren’t as sexy as Biotech and Wireless.
[/quote]

Technology is the primary reason why houses in Carmel Valley and Sorrento Valley are three times more expensive than identical houses in Chula Vista.

Silicon Valley and Seattle excluded, I don’t think there is a single place in the country where technology is THE driver of the economy. But it is quite strong in San Diego compared to many other large cities.[/quote]

Granted it WAS the driver. But is it still driving the economy? Or has it left town? (So to speak).

They used to say the same thing about the area I live. They don’t anymore.*

*Except in the usual government sponsored propaganda and real estate pimping media vehicles.

[LesBaer45]

[quote=tom] They also showed the new expanded version details (15k, any home buyer, no income limits).

[/quote]

They extend it with these kind of terms and I might just see about buying that second(small)home up in the hills. F’it, why not make it so second homes are permitted? It’s all a scam anyway.

Of course a wise pigg would merely shrug it off and wait till the end of 2010, when it’ll be extended yet again only this time for a 25K credit. 🙂

[LesBaer45]

[quote=tom] They also showed the new expanded version details (15k, any home buyer, no income limits).

[/quote]

They extend it with these kind of terms and I might just see about buying that second(small)home up in the hills. F’it, why not make it so second homes are permitted? It’s all a scam anyway.

Of course a wise pigg would merely shrug it off and wait till the end of 2010, when it’ll be extended yet again only this time for a 25K credit. 🙂

[LesBaer45]

[quote=tom] They also showed the new expanded version details (15k, any home buyer, no income limits).

[/quote]

They extend it with these kind of terms and I might just see about buying that second(small)home up in the hills. F’it, why not make it so second homes are permitted? It’s all a scam anyway.

Of course a wise pigg would merely shrug it off and wait till the end of 2010, when it’ll be extended yet again only this time for a 25K credit. 🙂

[LesBaer45]

[quote=tom] They also showed the new expanded version details (15k, any home buyer, no income limits).

[/quote]

They extend it with these kind of terms and I might just see about buying that second(small)home up in the hills. F’it, why not make it so second homes are permitted? It’s all a scam anyway.

Of course a wise pigg would merely shrug it off and wait till the end of 2010, when it’ll be extended yet again only this time for a 25K credit. 🙂

[LesBaer45]

[quote=tom] They also showed the new expanded version details (15k, any home buyer, no income limits).

[/quote]

They extend it with these kind of terms and I might just see about buying that second(small)home up in the hills. F’it, why not make it so second homes are permitted? It’s all a scam anyway.

Of course a wise pigg would merely shrug it off and wait till the end of 2010, when it’ll be extended yet again only this time for a 25K credit. 🙂

[LesBaer45]

Apparently the servicers don’t want the properties, at least not yet.

Higher Losses Help Explain Foreclosure Drop
Copyright © Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. solutions.dowjones.com/tnt

Financial companies aren’t foreclosing on home mortgages nearly as quickly as they used to, and there is a simple, if not immediately obvious, reason why.

Data released last week by the Federal Reserve shows that homeowners who have gone more than three months without paying their mortgage were about half as likely to be put into foreclosure in May (the latest data available) as they were at the beginning of the crisis in 2007.

Servicers, which handle interactions with homeowners, cite various reasons for this slowdown, including state foreclosure moratoriums, overworked servicers and the government’s mortgage modification program. However, part of the reason may be that for servicers with any skin in the game – which would include banks and some independent servicers – now is a terrible time to foreclose.

Aside from the obvious political considerations, it just doesn’t make sense on the bottom line. The Fed’s data also showed that the loss severity – the loss on a foreclosed home with an Alt-A, or non-conventional, mortgage after it is resold – has jumped from the low single digits at the beginning of 2007 to closer to 60%, roughly mirroring the decline in foreclosures.

Faced with those kinds of losses, it might be better for a servicer to just stick its head in the sand.

This might explain some very odd anecdotal servicer behavior.

San Diego lawyer Greg Weston tells the story of a client who bought a single-family home in San Diego in 2005. He lost his job last year and stopped making payments on his home in October 2008.

A few months later he found a new job and moved his family to Colorado – mailing the keys of his San Diego house to the servicer, jingle mail.

The servicer, however, has refused to recognize that anything has changed.

“We offered to reduce the bank’s costs by doing a short sale or deed in lieu of foreclosure, but they will not communicate with me other than sending demands for payment or partial payment,” Weston said. “So the first lender could have taken title to the property months ago, but hasn’t.”

Weston acknowledges this is an extreme example, but the general pattern, he says, is quite common.

[LesBaer45]

Apparently the servicers don’t want the properties, at least not yet.

Higher Losses Help Explain Foreclosure Drop
Copyright © Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. solutions.dowjones.com/tnt

Financial companies aren’t foreclosing on home mortgages nearly as quickly as they used to, and there is a simple, if not immediately obvious, reason why.

Data released last week by the Federal Reserve shows that homeowners who have gone more than three months without paying their mortgage were about half as likely to be put into foreclosure in May (the latest data available) as they were at the beginning of the crisis in 2007.

Servicers, which handle interactions with homeowners, cite various reasons for this slowdown, including state foreclosure moratoriums, overworked servicers and the government’s mortgage modification program. However, part of the reason may be that for servicers with any skin in the game – which would include banks and some independent servicers – now is a terrible time to foreclose.

Aside from the obvious political considerations, it just doesn’t make sense on the bottom line. The Fed’s data also showed that the loss severity – the loss on a foreclosed home with an Alt-A, or non-conventional, mortgage after it is resold – has jumped from the low single digits at the beginning of 2007 to closer to 60%, roughly mirroring the decline in foreclosures.

Faced with those kinds of losses, it might be better for a servicer to just stick its head in the sand.

This might explain some very odd anecdotal servicer behavior.

San Diego lawyer Greg Weston tells the story of a client who bought a single-family home in San Diego in 2005. He lost his job last year and stopped making payments on his home in October 2008.

A few months later he found a new job and moved his family to Colorado – mailing the keys of his San Diego house to the servicer, jingle mail.

The servicer, however, has refused to recognize that anything has changed.

“We offered to reduce the bank’s costs by doing a short sale or deed in lieu of foreclosure, but they will not communicate with me other than sending demands for payment or partial payment,” Weston said. “So the first lender could have taken title to the property months ago, but hasn’t.”

Weston acknowledges this is an extreme example, but the general pattern, he says, is quite common.

[LesBaer45]

Apparently the servicers don’t want the properties, at least not yet.

Higher Losses Help Explain Foreclosure Drop
Copyright © Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. solutions.dowjones.com/tnt

Financial companies aren’t foreclosing on home mortgages nearly as quickly as they used to, and there is a simple, if not immediately obvious, reason why.

Data released last week by the Federal Reserve shows that homeowners who have gone more than three months without paying their mortgage were about half as likely to be put into foreclosure in May (the latest data available) as they were at the beginning of the crisis in 2007.

Servicers, which handle interactions with homeowners, cite various reasons for this slowdown, including state foreclosure moratoriums, overworked servicers and the government’s mortgage modification program. However, part of the reason may be that for servicers with any skin in the game – which would include banks and some independent servicers – now is a terrible time to foreclose.

Aside from the obvious political considerations, it just doesn’t make sense on the bottom line. The Fed’s data also showed that the loss severity – the loss on a foreclosed home with an Alt-A, or non-conventional, mortgage after it is resold – has jumped from the low single digits at the beginning of 2007 to closer to 60%, roughly mirroring the decline in foreclosures.

Faced with those kinds of losses, it might be better for a servicer to just stick its head in the sand.

This might explain some very odd anecdotal servicer behavior.

San Diego lawyer Greg Weston tells the story of a client who bought a single-family home in San Diego in 2005. He lost his job last year and stopped making payments on his home in October 2008.

A few months later he found a new job and moved his family to Colorado – mailing the keys of his San Diego house to the servicer, jingle mail.

The servicer, however, has refused to recognize that anything has changed.

“We offered to reduce the bank’s costs by doing a short sale or deed in lieu of foreclosure, but they will not communicate with me other than sending demands for payment or partial payment,” Weston said. “So the first lender could have taken title to the property months ago, but hasn’t.”

Weston acknowledges this is an extreme example, but the general pattern, he says, is quite common.

[LesBaer45]

Apparently the servicers don’t want the properties, at least not yet.

Higher Losses Help Explain Foreclosure Drop
Copyright © Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. solutions.dowjones.com/tnt

Financial companies aren’t foreclosing on home mortgages nearly as quickly as they used to, and there is a simple, if not immediately obvious, reason why.

Data released last week by the Federal Reserve shows that homeowners who have gone more than three months without paying their mortgage were about half as likely to be put into foreclosure in May (the latest data available) as they were at the beginning of the crisis in 2007.

Servicers, which handle interactions with homeowners, cite various reasons for this slowdown, including state foreclosure moratoriums, overworked servicers and the government’s mortgage modification program. However, part of the reason may be that for servicers with any skin in the game – which would include banks and some independent servicers – now is a terrible time to foreclose.

Aside from the obvious political considerations, it just doesn’t make sense on the bottom line. The Fed’s data also showed that the loss severity – the loss on a foreclosed home with an Alt-A, or non-conventional, mortgage after it is resold – has jumped from the low single digits at the beginning of 2007 to closer to 60%, roughly mirroring the decline in foreclosures.

Faced with those kinds of losses, it might be better for a servicer to just stick its head in the sand.

This might explain some very odd anecdotal servicer behavior.

San Diego lawyer Greg Weston tells the story of a client who bought a single-family home in San Diego in 2005. He lost his job last year and stopped making payments on his home in October 2008.

A few months later he found a new job and moved his family to Colorado – mailing the keys of his San Diego house to the servicer, jingle mail.

The servicer, however, has refused to recognize that anything has changed.

“We offered to reduce the bank’s costs by doing a short sale or deed in lieu of foreclosure, but they will not communicate with me other than sending demands for payment or partial payment,” Weston said. “So the first lender could have taken title to the property months ago, but hasn’t.”

Weston acknowledges this is an extreme example, but the general pattern, he says, is quite common.

[Author]

Posts