Tell me why the government should or needs to fix this

[Yurt]

Foreclosures drive home sales; median at 9-year low

(02-19) 10:51 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- The relentless tide of foreclosures impelled gangbuster sales at bargain prices in the Bay Area in January, according to a real estate report released today.

A total of 3,918 existing homes changed hands in the nine-county region in January, a huge jump from the 2,312 sales last January, according to research firm MDA DataQuick of San Diego.

For the first time, more than half - 54.2 percent - of all homes sold in the nine-county region were bank-owned foreclosures. Their fire-sale prices drove the median sales price for existing homes down to $304,000, a nine-year low.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/19/BUC71613BL.DTL&type=business&tsp=1

[crin63]

Its the only reason I could buy a home in Los Angeles.

I bought my home for $225k less than it went for in 2006 plus it had $60k in upgrades done to it.

[Yurt]

Its the only reason I could buy a home in Los Angeles.

I bought my home for $225k less than it went for in 2006 plus it had $60k in upgrades done to it.

so in reality, this makes it more affordable for people to purchase homes, thus, if the government stays out of this, more people will purchase homes.

[glockmail]

The free market is a beautiful thing if the government would take its filthy hands off of it.

[emmett]

Its the only reason I could buy a home in Los Angeles.

I bought my home for $225k less than it went for in 2006 plus it had $60k in upgrades done to it.


Just out of curiosity pal, I mean, correct me if I seem a bit intrusive on your personal business....... but a guy like you..... that seems to be a pretty sharp young man, intelligent..... well spoken.... seemingly succesful.... good moral foundation.......


WHY IN THE HELL DO YOU WANT TO LIVE IN LOS ANGELES SON?



Just kidding brother!

[manu1959]

ok...i just heard a woman on the radio interviewed that her.....

first was 7% and her second was 11%.....

omfg.....how can people be so stupid.....and we are going to renegotiate on her behalf to 5% or less and pick up the difference.....

now someone tell me why i would not just default on my loan on purpose....

[Joe Steel]

now someone tell me why i would not just default on my loan on purpose....

No reason. Go ahead. What's the worse that could happen?

Maybe if enough borrowers try it, mortgage holders will offer refinancing at fair rates just to avoid the hassle of dealing with the defaulters.

[Mr. P]

No reason. Go ahead. What's the worse that could happen?

Maybe if enough borrowers try it, mortgage holders will offer refinancing at fair rates just to avoid the hassle of dealing with the defaulters.



2008 U.S. Foreclosure Market Report™, which shows a total of 3,157,806 foreclosure filings — default notices, auction sale notices and bank repossessions — were reported on 2,330,483 U.S. properties during the year, an 81 percent increase in total properties from 2007

Just how much is enough in your opinion?

[red states rule]

No reason. Go ahead. What's the worse that could happen?

Maybe if enough borrowers try it, mortgage holders will offer refinancing at fair rates just to avoid the hassle of dealing with the defaulters.

Joe it is obvious like most big government wack jobs, you do not have a clue about the current market

Rates for a 30 year fixed are around 5%

I am back to work, and re-fis are being done in huge numbers. I have been back on the phone for the last 2 days, and I have processed about 45 re-fi requests myself

The re-fi center is backed up to a point where the phone systems can't put anymore people on hold - that is why reps like myself are taking the calls

In fact my compnay is offering a stream line, no frills re-fi with ZERO closing costs - and you do not have to be a customer to get it

[bullypulpit]

Foreclosures drive home sales; median at 9-year low

(02-19) 10:51 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- The relentless tide of foreclosures impelled gangbuster sales at bargain prices in the Bay Area in January, according to a real estate report released today.

A total of 3,918 existing homes changed hands in the nine-county region in January, a huge jump from the 2,312 sales last January, according to research firm MDA DataQuick of San Diego.

For the first time, more than half - 54.2 percent - of all homes sold in the nine-county region were bank-owned foreclosures. Their fire-sale prices drove the median sales price for existing homes down to $304,000, a nine-year low.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/19/BUC71613BL.DTL&type=business&tsp=1

Having bought homes as the housing bubble reached its peak, many people now owe more on their houses that they are actually worth...I'm not talking slackers and wastrels here either. I'm talking about people who did everything right...put 20% down, never missed a mortgage payment. When they try to refinance into a more favorable interest rate loan, or a more favorable payment structure...they can't get the credit because the home they are mortgaging is worth less than the amount of the loan they are seeking even if, as it should be, they are only refinancing the balance of the principle on their mortgage. And, having even one home in a neighborhood in foreclosure can drag down the home values in the rest of the neighborhood even further.

That is why the government needs to fix it. IMHO that is what the rest of the TARP funds should go towards. The banks, the responsible ones at any rate, will benefit.

[red states rule]

Having bought homes as the housing bubble reached its peak, many people now owe more on their houses that they are actually worth...I'm not talking slackers and wastrels here either. I'm talking about people who did everything right...put 20% down, never missed a mortgage payment. When they try to refinance into a more favorable interest rate loan, or a more favorable payment structure...they can't get the credit because the home they are mortgaging is worth less than the amount of the loan they are seeking even if, as it should be, they are only refinancing the balance of the principle on their mortgage. And, having even one home in a neighborhood in foreclosure can drag down the home values in the rest of the neighborhood even further.

That is why the government needs to fix it. IMHO that is what the rest of the TARP funds should go towards. The banks, the responsible ones at any rate, will benefit.

and yet Barney Frank said over and again when Pres Bush wanted to tighten lending requirements there was no problem with Fannie and Freddie

[Joe Steel]

Just how much is enough in your opinion?

Is it having an effect, though?

I've seen rates decrease in my area but I don't know how the decrease is affecting stressed borrowers. Maybe lenders are allowing them to refinance at low rates. I don't know. Do you?

[bullypulpit]

Joe it is obvious like most big government wack jobs, you do not have a clue about the current market

Rates for a 30 year fixed are around 5%

I am back to work, and re-fis are being done in huge numbers. I have been back on the phone for the last 2 days, and I have processed about 45 re-fi requests myself

The re-fi center is backed up to a point where the phone systems can't put anymore people on hold - that is why reps like myself are taking the calls

In fact my compnay is offering a stream line, no frills re-fi with ZERO closing costs - and you do not have to be a customer to get it

How many of those re-fis are only for the balance on the principle of the first mortgage? If these people are refinancing for more than that in cash-out deals, they're going to wind up in trouble even a year or two out, especially in this economy. Secondly, once the loan closes, does your company have ANY liability for that loan, as in, "Do they hold their mortgages or sell them to get their cut and get them off their books?" If it's the latter, your company is part of the problem.

[Joe Steel]

Joe it is obvious like most big government wack jobs, you do not have a clue about the current market

Rates for a 30 year fixed are around 5%

I am back to work, and re-fis are being done in huge numbers. I have been back on the phone for the last 2 days, and I have processed about 45 re-fi requests myself

The re-fi center is backed up to a point where the phone systems can't put anymore people on hold - that is why reps like myself are taking the calls

In fact my compnay is offering a stream line, no frills re-fi with ZERO closing costs - and you do not have to be a customer to get it

Are you offering all this to borrowers in foreclosure?

[red states rule]

How many of those re-fis are only for the balance on the principle of the first mortgage? If these people are refinancing for more than that in cash-out deals, they're going to wind up in trouble even a year or two out, especially in this economy. Secondly, once the loan closes, does your company have ANY liability for that loan, as in, "Do they hold their mortgages or sell them to get their cut and get them off their books?" If it's the latter, your company is part of the problem.

BP, the ONLY way they can roll over home equity loans is if the total amount of the re-fi is UNDER 80% LTV

We hold the loan, and service it. We are mostly buyers of the loans, and sell very few of them

[bullypulpit]

and yet Barney Frank said over and again when Pres Bush wanted to tighten lending requirements there was no problem with Fannie and Freddie

So, tell me Red, How did Bush fail to get these requirements passed when the GOP controlled BOTH houses of Congress and the White House? Common sense tells us that he didn't want them to succeed in the first place.

[red states rule]

So, tell me Red, How did Bush fail to get these requirements passed when the GOP controlled BOTH houses of Congress and the White House? Common sense tells us that he didn't want them to succeed in the first place.

He needed 60 votes in the Senate BP, Dems blocked it

Yet, libs like yourself give Dems a pass for denying the problems with Fannie and Freddie - and blame Pres Bush despite the fact he called attention to the problem as far back as 2002

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cMnSp4qEXNM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cMnSp4qEXNM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[glockmail]

So, tell me Red, How did Bush fail to get these requirements passed when the GOP controlled BOTH houses of Congress and the White House? Common sense tells us that he didn't want them to succeed in the first place. Unfortunately there are a lot of RINOs among the members of congress.

[red states rule]

Are you offering all this to borrowers in foreclosure?

Of course not

However, the can get the loan modified if the qualify. Yet more then 50% of those h/o's go right back into default

They bought a house they could not afford - that is the problem

[bullypulpit]

BP, the ONLY way they can roll over home equity loans is if the total amount of the re-fi is UNDER 80% LTV

We hold the loan, and service it. We are mostly buyers of the loans, and sell very few of them

That varies from state to state, as you well know Red. In Ohio, lenders can, and do max borrowers out, on the total value of 1st and second mortgages, at 85% LTV . It may be different in your part of the world.

And kudos to your company for holding their loans. When they've got skin in the game, they lend far more responsibly.

[red states rule]

That varies from state to state, as you well know Red. In Ohio, lenders can, and do max borrowers out, on the total value of 1st and second mortgages, at 85% LTV . It may be different in your part of the world.

And kudos to your company for holding their loans. When they've got skin in the game, they lend far more responsibly.

Since we are making the loan, we make the rules

Unless Obama,a nd the Dems, wants to tell us the conditions we can lend our money to people like they did which got us into this mess

[glockmail]

He needed 60 votes in the Senate BP, Dems blocked it
.... They could only block because the RINO are too lame to fight a filibuster.

[red states rule]

They could only block because the RINO are too lame to fight a filibuster.

In 2002, I believe VP Cheney was the tie breaking vote.

[red states rule]

Another element of the problem that the liberal media amd Dems ignore, is higher taxes and H/O ins that causes people default on their home loan

If you have an escrow account, when your property taxes and ins goes up - your payment goes up

Even though you have a fixed rate, your monthly payment can increase by hundreds of dollars per month

The states that have insane tax rates are CA, NY, and NJ. I have talked to many homeowners who are shocked to see how their payment has gone through the roof, and there is little that can be done. Taxes and ins must be paid, and that is a huge factor in people losing their home

[glockmail]

....

The states that have insane tax rates are CA, NY, and NJ. I have talked to many homeowners who are shocked to see how their payment has gone through the roof, and there is little that can be done. Taxes and ins must be paid, and that is a huge factor in people losing their home

I moved from NY 12 years ago because I was about to move up from my starter home and my friends who had already done so were paying $10G in taxes. in NC I've got a bigger house, modern construction, all brick, controlled neighborhood, better schools, less crime, less traffic, and better economy and I'm paying 1/3 of what they used to pay 12 years ago. Plus my electrical rates are about 65% of what they now pay. And I pay less in income, gas and sales taxes.

I have a friend who is moving from Georgia to Ohio and or course she wants the same value house, but she can't because the taxes are 4 times higher. And the houses cost more, plus the schools suck so she needs to send her daughter to private school.

[red states rule]

Now the "Perky One" has the answer to all our financial problems


Couric: Bank Nationalization Will Provide 'Big Dose of Confidence'
By Brent Baker (Bio | Archive)
February 19, 2009 - 20:56 ET

Katie Couric concluded a Thursday night look at the pros and cons of nationalizing banks by seeing the federal government as a comforting security blanket: “Nationalization may have a psychological impact as well, and Uncle Sam wrapping his arms around failing banks in this country might provide a big dose of confidence for the American consumer.”

Building to her pro-nationalization conclusion, Couric asserted that “everyone hopes to avoid what happened to Japan back in the 90s when the government pumped good money into bad banks, essentially keeping unhealthy financial institutions that weren't going to make it anyway on life support, crippling the economy” while, in contrast, “a government takeover of a bank last year” in Britain “ helped to temporarily calm fears in the financial markets there.”

Earlier in the CBS Evening News piece, Couric outlined the arguments for and against nationalization, ending with quite an understatement about the quality of government-provided customer service:

There are two sides to this coin. It could keep banks open and free up money so they can start lending again. But it could scare off private investors who will see government ownership as a sign of damaged goods, there could be more branch closings, and a government bureaucracy may not offer the best customer service.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2009/02/19/couric-bank-nationalization-will-provide-big-dose-confidence

[red states rule]

I moved from NY 12 years ago because I was about to move up from my starter home and my friends who had already done so were paying $10G in taxes. in NC I've got a bigger house, modern construction, all brick, controlled neighborhood, better schools, less crime, less traffic, and better economy and I'm paying 1/3 of what they used to pay 12 years ago. Plus my electrical rates are about 65% of what they now pay. And I pay less in income, gas and sales taxes.

I have a friend who is moving from Georgia to Ohio and or course she wants the same value house, but she can't because the taxes are 4 times higher. And the houses cost more, plus the schools suck so she needs to send her daughter to private school.

Somehting else I noticed is if you buy a NEW home, the tax amount used at closing sometimes is the tax on a unimproved lot

About 8 months later when a new escrow analysis is run, the correct tax is used, payments can jump by as much as $400/month

Talk about sticker shock when the h/o gets the notice

[glockmail]

Now the "Perky One" has the answer to all our financial problems


Couric: Bank Nationalization Will Provide 'Big Dose of Confidence'
By Brent Baker (Bio | Archive)
February 19, 2009 - 20:56 ET

Katie Couric concluded a Thursday night look at the pros and cons of nationalizing banks by seeing the federal government as a comforting security blanket: “Nationalization may have a psychological impact as well, and Uncle Sam wrapping his arms around failing banks in this country might provide a big dose of confidence for the American consumer.”

Building to her pro-nationalization conclusion, Couric asserted that “everyone hopes to avoid what happened to Japan back in the 90s when the government pumped good money into bad banks, essentially keeping unhealthy financial institutions that weren't going to make it anyway on life support, crippling the economy” while, in contrast, “a government takeover of a bank last year” in Britain “ helped to temporarily calm fears in the financial markets there.”

Earlier in the CBS Evening News piece, Couric outlined the arguments for and against nationalization, ending with quite an understatement about the quality of government-provided customer service:

There are two sides to this coin. It could keep banks open and free up money so they can start lending again. But it could scare off private investors who will see government ownership as a sign of damaged goods, there could be more branch closings, and a government bureaucracy may not offer the best customer service.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2009/02/19/couric-bank-nationalization-will-provide-big-dose-confidence

That's the way liberals think, Red. Only the government can provide confidence. They have no confidence in the free market system.

[red states rule]

That's the way liberals think, Red. Only the government can provide confidence. They have no confidence in the free market system.

and if you watch the Dow, investors have ZERO confidence in Obama

Since Obama won the election, the Dow is down about 2.500 points

[crin63]

so in reality, this makes it more affordable for people to purchase homes, thus, if the government stays out of this, more people will purchase homes.

Yes, but on the other hand if government had not forced lenders to make loans to people who couldn't afford to pay them back in the first place, home price would not have gone through the roof. Government created the high cost of housing by adding what, potentially millions of new buyers that flooded the market and started buying up anything they could get.



Just out of curiosity pal, I mean, correct me if I seem a bit intrusive on your personal business....... but a guy like you..... that seems to be a pretty sharp young man, intelligent..... well spoken.... seemingly succesful.... good moral foundation.......


WHY IN THE HELL DO YOU WANT TO LIVE IN LOS ANGELES SON?



Just kidding brother!

Although I know you're kidding (to some degree) I have an explanation that most people don't understand or don't agree with. My church is here. That's the only reason I stay. I always hear that their are good churches in Texas or Arizona and so on but my personal convictions and beliefs are that God saves a person in the church where he intends for them to serve. If my church began to preach a different gospel than that of the Bible or in other words heresy then I would struggle to restore it before it's light was removed. If it was removed and not restarted elsewhere I would then get out of this state as quick as I could load up and leave.

[red states rule]

Although I know you're kidding (to some degree) I have an explanation that most people don't understand or don't agree with. My church is here. That's the only reason I stay. I always hear that their are good churches in Texas or Arizona and so on but my personal convictions and beliefs are that God saves a person in the church where he intends for them to serve. If my church began to preach a different gospel than that of the Bible or in other words heresy then I would struggle to restore it before it's light was removed. If it was removed and not restarted elsewhere I would then get out of this state as quick as I could load up and leave.

I understand perfectly Crin. You have principals and unlike some who talk about their Church, you actually walk the walk

[bullypulpit]

Since we are making the loan, we make the rules

Unless Obama,a nd the Dems, wants to tell us the conditions we can lend our money to people like they did which got us into this mess


What about cash-out re-fis? Don't get defensive, just askin'.

[glockmail]

What about cash-out re-fis? Don't get defensive, just askin'.Since the government lets you deduct the interest, for the expressed purpose of making it easier for Americans to buy homes, I think that its reasonable to restrict the use of cash-outs to long term investments.

[Joe Steel]

Of course not

However, the can get the loan modified if the qualify. Yet more then 50% of those h/o's go right back into default

They bought a house they could not afford - that is the problem

That may be. But what about borrowers in foreclosure because their ARM when too high? Rates are falling now. Do you let them refinance at the lower rates?

[Nukeman]

That may be. But what about borrowers in foreclosure because their ARM when too high? Rates are falling now. Do you let them refinance at the lower rates?
Did or did they not sign for the ARM???? Did or did they not READ the term of the loans. If they qualified for the ARM they should qualify for the lower fixed.

IF the bank suddenly says they won't than the people have a legitimate argument and case, It is not up to the government to "save" the people it is up to the banks to realize they screwed up as much as the borrower!!! Now will that happen? I don't know but if a bank has enough defaults and tries to unload those houses than the price for the houses will drop and more people can afford them. Without I might add the FALSELY inflated prices.....

[red states rule]

What about cash-out re-fis? Don't get defensive, just askin'.

Not defensive BP - just telling you the facts

H/O have a ceiling on how much equity they can tap. Unless Obama and the Dems decide they will write the terms on the loan

[red states rule]

That may be. But what about borrowers in foreclosure because their ARM when too high? Rates are falling now. Do you let them refinance at the lower rates?

The borrower could have done a refi BEFORE the rate changed. They are given 60 days notice before their payment changes