Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
no_such_reality
ParticipantThe banks will hold on until the stock market starts to punish them for underperforming assets being on their books.
Until the ROA starts to drop and their stock price drops because people see it they’ll hold on. The reason is simple, when they let go, their refiance business, which is still fairly good and more importantly, full of desperate people will dry up. When they let go, they will crater the market. And if they crater the market, they will increase defaults because people will walk away when they are 40% underwater and their ARM reset pushes their payment to over half their net pay.
ParticipantDue to the scale and scope of this fraud ring, it would be highly interesting to redo the inland sales figures backing out suspected/known fraud houses.
With potentially 2000 plus homes concentrated in the Temecula/Murrieta area, they literally were the market for the last two years. They bought enough of the monthly share that their homes were basically ascertained to be used as comps for the follow-on months.
I wonder what the odds are that this ring accounted for 50% of the home sales in those communities in any given month? Or even 25%? Even 10% will sway the market drastically.
Can you imagine the reaction of any jury of people that are actually struggling with rent or their mortgage payments when the ring leaders and plaintiffs are shown to be manipulating 10, 25, or maybe 50% of the local housing market activity?
Can you imagine the rage at the people that were stuck in bidding wars? Or of Joe and Sally homeowner when they discover every home they looked at that sold before they could bid and then as used as comps for their purchase were all these fraudulent homes?
If the scale and scope is what has been purported, they all will need a change of venue because there will be literally, no one in the area, that hasn’t been screwed over by we didn’t understand investments.
ParticipantDue to the scale and scope of this fraud ring, it would be highly interesting to redo the inland sales figures backing out suspected/known fraud houses.
With potentially 2000 plus homes concentrated in the Temecula/Murrieta area, they literally were the market for the last two years. They bought enough of the monthly share that their homes were basically ascertained to be used as comps for the follow-on months.
I wonder what the odds are that this ring accounted for 50% of the home sales in those communities in any given month? Or even 25%? Even 10% will sway the market drastically.
Can you imagine the reaction of any jury of people that are actually struggling with rent or their mortgage payments when the ring leaders and plaintiffs are shown to be manipulating 10, 25, or maybe 50% of the local housing market activity?
Can you imagine the rage at the people that were stuck in bidding wars? Or of Joe and Sally homeowner when they discover every home they looked at that sold before they could bid and then as used as comps for their purchase were all these fraudulent homes?
If the scale and scope is what has been purported, they all will need a change of venue because there will be literally, no one in the area, that hasn’t been screwed over by we didn’t understand investments.
ParticipantI think a lot of us look at the Temecula fraud case like the Courts look company management in a hostile work environment & sexual harassment case. The operative ruling is “known” or “should have known”…
Similarly to corporate crime, SOX was instigated to eliminate CEOs claming “not to have known”. CEO were experts at insulating themselves from information so that they didn’t officially know of any bending of the rules.
Yes, we realize there is much blatant crime in the final execution of the gambit by the ring-leaders. However, many of us see a situation where the ‘victims’ “should have known” it was illegitimate and thus appear to be willing co-conspirators ready to go along as long as they thought they were going to get theirs that didn’t cry fowl until they got stung.
ParticipantI think a lot of us look at the Temecula fraud case like the Courts look company management in a hostile work environment & sexual harassment case. The operative ruling is “known” or “should have known”…
Similarly to corporate crime, SOX was instigated to eliminate CEOs claming “not to have known”. CEO were experts at insulating themselves from information so that they didn’t officially know of any bending of the rules.
Yes, we realize there is much blatant crime in the final execution of the gambit by the ring-leaders. However, many of us see a situation where the ‘victims’ “should have known” it was illegitimate and thus appear to be willing co-conspirators ready to go along as long as they thought they were going to get theirs that didn’t cry fowl until they got stung.
ParticipantSD_R that sounds familiar. When it’s time, it’s time. Hopefully you can get somewhat close to rental value after taxes. Maybe bargain out one more year to gain a little more negative on the market. But ultimately, if you are looking for 10K lot and an area with setbacks that are more than three feet and haven’t been McMansionized, when it’s for sale, it may just be time.
Your target market doesn’t have a comparable rental and that’s a bit of a crux. Sure, you can get the same square footage, maybe a big yard, but likely a different neighborhood, busy street, etc. Or worse, you can settle for “good enough”… If you look at it by taking a similar set of houses and start adding slight premiums in for updating, yard size, neighborhood desire, slow street,… you probably get pretty close especially if you find a seller that realizes it’s 2007 and not 2005+25%.
I’m bearish, and I think the market justifiably has a long way to fall, but that is only because so much of the market are literally, just glorified rentals (condos, townhomes) or cookie cutter clustered tract homes with a 1000 identical within the square mile of the HOA.
Properties that aren’t that, will fall, but before they do, every move-up buyer that wants out of the cookie cutter is going to go for it. If the financing works, it’s happiness and certainty versus uncertainty and some probability distribution centered around a couple hundred thousand of extra cost stretched over 30 years.
I’m a pretty simple guy, I always focus on two extremes: the minimum I need and has everything I want. “Good enough” always tends to get me in a spot that isn’t satisfactory and just burns my time, money and energy. If it doesn’t have everything I want, there’s no point in having more than the minimum I need.
ParticipantSD_R that sounds familiar. When it’s time, it’s time. Hopefully you can get somewhat close to rental value after taxes. Maybe bargain out one more year to gain a little more negative on the market. But ultimately, if you are looking for 10K lot and an area with setbacks that are more than three feet and haven’t been McMansionized, when it’s for sale, it may just be time.
Your target market doesn’t have a comparable rental and that’s a bit of a crux. Sure, you can get the same square footage, maybe a big yard, but likely a different neighborhood, busy street, etc. Or worse, you can settle for “good enough”… If you look at it by taking a similar set of houses and start adding slight premiums in for updating, yard size, neighborhood desire, slow street,… you probably get pretty close especially if you find a seller that realizes it’s 2007 and not 2005+25%.
I’m bearish, and I think the market justifiably has a long way to fall, but that is only because so much of the market are literally, just glorified rentals (condos, townhomes) or cookie cutter clustered tract homes with a 1000 identical within the square mile of the HOA.
Properties that aren’t that, will fall, but before they do, every move-up buyer that wants out of the cookie cutter is going to go for it. If the financing works, it’s happiness and certainty versus uncertainty and some probability distribution centered around a couple hundred thousand of extra cost stretched over 30 years.
I’m a pretty simple guy, I always focus on two extremes: the minimum I need and has everything I want. “Good enough” always tends to get me in a spot that isn’t satisfactory and just burns my time, money and energy. If it doesn’t have everything I want, there’s no point in having more than the minimum I need.
ParticipantParticipantParticipantThe ‘new’ program they were supposed to give you 6-9 months worth of payments and you could ‘choose’ whether to keep or sell
Did any body bother to ask where the money for the 6-9 months of payments was suppose to come from?
ParticipantThe ‘new’ program they were supposed to give you 6-9 months worth of payments and you could ‘choose’ whether to keep or sell
Did any body bother to ask where the money for the 6-9 months of payments was suppose to come from?
ParticipantI doubt it. That’s too much. Rents will depress leading to a delapidated ghetto of rental units.
Of course, maybe I’m wrong, when prices fall near $100,000 people will snap them up as vacation rentals…
ParticipantI doubt it. That’s too much. Rents will depress leading to a delapidated ghetto of rental units.
Of course, maybe I’m wrong, when prices fall near $100,000 people will snap them up as vacation rentals…
ParticipantActually, didn’t the 89-90-91 peak work basically the exact same way as it is this time? Prices kept moving up, volume slowed, then it flat line and turned.
-
AuthorPosts
