Thats awsome, yet equally sad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
And it's a waste of time engaging woodstocksez, he's always right, and the world is wrong. Whatever he sez, is gospel.
Printable View
Thats awsome, yet equally sad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
And it's a waste of time engaging woodstocksez, he's always right, and the world is wrong. Whatever he sez, is gospel.
????? What did we even discuss that hurt your feelings so badly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone-Free
Eh, who cares? Stop being a pussy, pussy.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...VBCJ.DTL&tsp=1
Some good news for bay area. My county sold almost 20% less houses last month compared to a year ago. No suprise there. Theres no inventory out here anymore.
http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/20...1271366550.jpg
Ehhh. okay.Quote:
Originally Posted by woodstocksez
Only if you quit being a condecending, brain waving, know-it-all, assfuck.
Wait....some things in the universe are a constant, just like Oprah being fat. I guess I'll just have to continue being a pussy. Pussy.
More proof from Chase
Quote:
Here is what Chase said about its Home Equity (second) mortgage portfolio:
Chase owns about $131 billion in Home Equity loans and lines as of February 28, 2010.
• Approximately $25 billion are home equity loans and $106 billion are home equity lines of credit.
• Approximately $33 billion are in first lien position and $98 billion in second lien position.
• 5% of Chase’s home equity portfolio is 30 days or more delinquent. Total home equity line, home equity loan, first lien and second lien delinquency rates are within two percentage points of the overall total.
• About 50% of the total Chase second lien portfolio is underwater, and 95% of this portfolio is performing (less than 60 days past due). 30% of second lien mortgages have combined loan-to-value ratios over 125% and 94% of this portfolio is performing.
• For $40 billion of Chase-owned second lien mortgages, Chase also services a first lien mortgage:
• 92% of these first lien mortgages are performing.
• 28% of these first lien mortgages are by themselves underwater (loan- to-value ratio of over 100%).
• 45% of first lien mortgages have a combined loan- to-value ratio of over 100%.
• About 10% of Chase’s total serviced portfolio of first lien mortgage loans has a Chase-owned second lien.
• Our best estimate is that about 20% of Chase serviced first lien mortgages may have a second lien from another lender and about 70% do not have a second lien.
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/20...on-second.html
Cool. I got 15 of 16 correct. I guess Vancouver is as out of control as my neighborhood:rolleyes: Honestly, I can't believe the crap some people will pay $1M for. I keep hearing location, location, but WTF?Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
In San Diego we had the same large increase in median value last month due to the sale of more high end properties bringing the value average up.
I have recently seen some $2M+ homes sell in my neighborhood, so maybe the high end is thawing out while I read the low end is bidding war city for properties at $300k or lower in SD County.
It will be interesting to see what happens if the $8k tax credit actually goes away.
vancouver is completely out of control and it's day of reckoning will come, i found one of them on mls:Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2ski
http://www.realtor.ca/propertyDetail...ertyId=8986855
the house is worthless, but 1.3 mil for a 4000sqft lot ($325 a square foot), and you get to live on a busy 4 lane boulevard? where do i sign?! check it out:
http://tinyurl.com/y7z9lup
Doesn't Vancouver have a lot of Asian money floating the market? That's the only way I can explain that to myself.
http://www.oftwominds.com/blog.html
"In the good old days circa 1945-2005, buying a house opened up a much broader pathway to upward mobility than a slot in an Elite university. Regardless of one's education or job, if you could buy a house, then the big tax breaks of homeownership began cutting one's taxes while increasing the "savings" in home equity. Even without any appreciation, a mortgage was still a type of forced savings; the accumulated equity could be passed on to one's children when the mortgage was paid off.
Inheritable wealth defines "middle class:" poor people don't have any assets to pass on, and so three generations later, the family is still poor. Families which accumulated assets in the form of the family home became middle-class by accumulating the foundations of wealth for future generations.
As the saying goes, it takes three generations to produce a musician.
Now the average American household has little to no equity. The equity was either squandered in big-spending drawdowns of equity via home equity lines of credit, or it was lost in "moving up" in the housing bubble to costly big homes which have since deflated in value, wiping out the household equity--perhaps equity that had slowly been accumulated over three generations."
Good take Benny. I was talking to a co worker today and they asked me at what level I thought values would have to hit before the RE market started to come back in So Cal. I told them 2000-2001, as those were the last years before the Stated Income loans really made the market take off. Now that everyone needs to qualify and in many cases has taken a pay cut in the last 10 years, values need to be at that level for the people that want to buy to be able to qualify.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
Vancouver is subject to lots of Asian cash coming into the economy. I remember when the Chinese got Hong Kong back in their control and it became apparent it would remain business as usual, lots of the Chinese went back to Hong Kong and prices fell by 50%. Fucking US Peso got about $1.35 Canadian to the dollar too, so property was a bargain. To bad I didn't push the issue to buy in West Van back then.:mad:
From Realty Trac spam:
More than 250,000 properties were foreclosed on in the first quarter of 2010, the most bank repossessions (REOs) in any quarter since the beginning of the recession, according to the latest RealtyTrac U.S. Foreclosure Market Report®.
Despite a 33 percent year-over-year decrease in REOs, Nevada continued to post the nation’s highest state foreclosure rate, with one in every 33 properties receiving a foreclosure notice during the quarter.
Top 10 State Foreclosure Rates
State
Foreclosure Notices per Housing Unit
Nevada 33
Arizona 49
Florida 57
California 62
Utah 88
Michigan 99
Georgia 101
Idaho 101
Illinois 115
Colorado 134
I still think values have a ways to fall based on the various posts on this page. While we have seen some firming of values in SoCal, I know the banks have a huge shadow inventory they are foreclosing on-releasing as slowly as possible, not to let the values go down further. Lots of luck on that.
Guy on my staff here in Bay Area rented out his mortgaged house after refinancing and proceded to stop paying the mortgage while he rents a different house. Also owns two properties in Nevada. If you can't beat em join em I suppose..
I have 3 different friends foreclosing right now here in the bay area. All of them are in higher priced areas. One of them is actually losing 2 houses. Another's brother got married and basically bailed on him (they bought it together). The last just bought outside of their means and i told him that 3 years ago when he bought it, lol. The classic part of all this is all 3 kept telling me i needed to buy a house. I kept telling them there is no way i could afford what they are paying monthly. I'm glad i didnt take their advice and waited. I could have easily been in the same boat. Instead, i have a newer house than all of them and i paid half the money, hehe. :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2ski
Nevada had 33 foreclosure notices per housing unit? Wow. I'd hate to be that guy in 33rd position.Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2ski
And I find it even odder that Utah had one in every 88 properties receiving a foreclosure notice during the quarter. I have been looking in the Mt Olumpus, Sandy and LCC and haven't noticed the short sale/foreclosure listings I see elsewhere. Maybe the issues are elsewhere in the state?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutch
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/for...ory-103-months
In a piece from the Wall Street Journal on Saturday, LPS Applied Analytics estimated that foreclosures would create so much market supply that it would take 103 months to liquidate it.
As of March, banks had an inventory of about 1.1 million foreclosed homes, up 20% from a year earlier, according to estimates from LPS Applied Analytics. Another 4.8 million mortgage holders were at least 60 days behind on their payments or in the foreclosure process, meaning their homes were well on their way to the inventory pile. That “shadow inventory” was up 30% from a year earlier.
Based on the rate at which banks have been selling those foreclosed homes over the past few months, all that inventory, real and shadow, would take 103 months to unload. That’s nearly nine years.:eek:
Check out the first post under the article. Pretty good take IMO. And then there is this little gem.
"So, Friday night I went out with a friend of mine that I hadn't seen in nearly a year. It was a fairly expensive dinner.
When he paid is portion, he made a comment about how he probably can't do this again for awhile, since he's got to start paying rent in a month. Then he told me that he's been living mortgage free for the past 15 months, and now the bank is finally kicking him out.
So here's a guy, foreclosing on his house, yet still eating expensive dinners. And it made me think of the article written on this site recently about how consumer spending is at artificial levels, due to people spending money that would normally have gone to mortgages or rent. Instead, everyone's buying ipads and eating out for dinner until their day of reckoning comes.
With millions of households living mortgage/rent free for 12 or so months, you've got to wonder what will happen to consumer spending once those families are forced to start paying rent. No doubt, money that would have been spent on mortgages is propping up retailers and restaurants and other consumer outlets".
Are you fucking kidding me:eek:
Amazing, isn't it? I heard today that there may be almost five million people living rent free today, just paying property taxes and utilities, and, of course, credit card debt.Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2ski
Extend and Pretend.
wow - brilliant in a deadbeat scary kind of way.Quote:
Originally Posted by 4matic
and yes.. Vancouver's prices make no fucking sense. Yet all the realtors/shillers of shit in this town are STRONG BUYS
Here's a question I was wondering after reading all this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
If your not paying your mortgage, why would you pay your property taxes?
you cant short sale until you quit paying. Which is what everyone is doing here in the bay area. Your credit repairs faster and yoiu are eligible for an fha after 3 years. Thats why most i know were living mortgage and rent free. Even if i was foreclosing, why not wait till the bank kicks you out? Might as well let the house get used. Its going to be sitting another 2 years empty anyways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
you dont, the bank will be responsible for them or whoever buys the house. When buying a foreclosure, thats one of the first things you look at. Is there any back taxes owed and is their a lien on the property. I know at auctions, etc, that is in fact the case. If you buy an as is property, you are stuck with any liens. Iwant to say this came up before and live2ski i "think" stated that they dont even have to disclose it. It may not have been live2ski, but it was someone in here who has bought quite a few properties.Quote:
Originally Posted by enlosandes
So it isn't tax fraud and criminal like not paying the IRS?Quote:
Originally Posted by cramer
well my understanding is you are paying your taxes for 2010 in 2009. So in this process, if you are foreclosing in 2010 you've already paid your taxes for the year. Or, if you are like me, mine are paid into an escrow account. So the bank pays my taxes and in this case, they'd have my money already for the taxes. Hope that makes sense. So either way, by the time ive lost the house, someone else is going to have to pay the taxes, aka, the new owner. The only scenario you'd be on the hook is if the house didnt sell and the bank never forecloses on the property. Detroit maybe? heh.Quote:
Originally Posted by enlosandes
Interesting to know, thanks for the explanation. I can't imagine many people being foreclosed on would pay property taxes then.Quote:
Originally Posted by cramer
I'm not sure im 100% correct. I'd need a legal mag to chyme in. But my guess is people who would continue to pay property tax dont know any better or are just making sure to cover their ass. If it was me and i had not spoken to a lawyer, i would put that money aside "just in case". if i wasnt paying rent or a mortgage, but thats me.Quote:
Originally Posted by enlosandes