April 9, 2007

“And So The Spiral Continues”

The Post Tribune reports from Indiana. “The tiny two-bedroom cottage on Indianapolis Boulevard isn’t flashy, but it’s been home to Belinda Kovacik for 21 years. She and her ex-husband bought it for $60,000 in 1989. Her mortgage lender plans to foreclose because Kovacik can’t afford the $1,010 monthly payment. It was originally $860 a month, but because she got a subprime loan after a divorce in 2004, it started adjusting, and increasing, after four months.”

“Kovacik, like many buyers today, got her loan not from a local bank but from a loan originator. Kovacik didn’t understand the terms when she signed, and she’s still confused. The rate will increase again April 19. ‘When I got the paperwork I was like, ‘Oh my God,’ she said. ‘I’m at my limit. It feels like the stock market.’”

“‘Historically, one of the major factors of foreclosures was divorce or lack of income or unexpected medical expenses,’ said Terrence Conley, of Lake Mortgage Co. in Merrillville, which gives mostly traditional loans. ‘Now we’re seeing foreclosures caused by the inability of people to refinance these subprime loans into a more conventional mortgage.’”

The Beacon News from Illinois. “The number of foreclosure proceedings initiated in Kane and Kendall counties jumped to more than 1,600 last year, after hovering consistently around 1,000 for the previous three years.”

“The number of households spending 35 percent or more of their annual income on mortgage payments, well over the 30 percent benchmark recommended at Old Second Bank in Aurora, has roughly doubled since 2000. Between a quarter and a third of mortgaged homes are now feeling that kind of strain.”

“When Jacqueline Hollins and her daughter moved from a rented Lombard apartment to the Lakewood Springs subdivision in Plano, they thought they were home for good. A year later, their belongings are back in boxes while a Realtor shows their house, bought for $132,000, to potential buyers.”

“If she cannot sell the house or find another way to catch up on several thousand dollars worth of mortgage payments by July, the home will be auctioned off at the county courthouse.”

“Hollins fell behind on her mortgage payments during a long-term illness, which has kept her home from her $20-per-hour public service job since last summer. An officer first knocked on Hollins’ door a few days before Christmas, six months after she started falling behind on her mortgage.”

“‘He came and handed me the letter,’ Hollins recalled. ‘It had a court date. I just started packing then.’”

“Kendall County Sheriff’s Deputy Wayne Dial has noticed ‘a sharp incline in the evictions in the past three months.’ Courthouse auctions of homes here doubled at the end of last year, from five to 10 per month. Dial said he and his colleagues now are handing out three to five foreclosure notices a week, including quite a few in Lakewood Springs, Jacqueline Hollins’ subdivision.”

“In the past five years, lenders have offered riskier loans, and borrowers have not hesitated to take them. ‘When you didn’t have the work history or the down payment,’ said Unibanc Senior Consultant Juan Chavez, ‘there was always a lender trying to change guidelines.’”

“The number of sub-prime loans brokered at Unibanc in Aurora went from one out of five in 2004, to one of two in 2005, Chavez said.”

“At Old Second Bank in Aurora, VP Steve Weber faults companies’ willingness to offer riskier and riskier loans. Others blame residents for accepting those offers. ‘They didn’t think about the fact that in three years they’d have to earn more money,’ said Steve Lindberg, a Naperville foreclosure and bankruptcy attorney.”

The Chicago Tribune from Illinois. “Last week, I asked readers to opine on why the housing market can’t seem to climb out of its slump, and the results are in: We’re all to blame.”

“Everybody, it seems, who has any connection at all to the market merits a finger-wag in the face, according to my puny, wholly unscientific sampling of public sentiment.”

“‘There simply aren’t enough buyers to absorb all the new homes that have been built,’ wrote Debra O’Shea, who lives in the Old Irving Park area of Chicago, where she described a ‘glut’ of homes for sale.”

“‘Buyers are expecting more for less, and the developers are offering incentives like multiple free mortgage payments and significant upgrades for free, etc. The seller of an existing home…simply cannot compete with this,’ O’Shea said. ‘So, ultimately, if they want their home to sell, they have to drop the price, and so the spiral continues.’”

“‘(Real estate agents convince) the sellers their home is worth the price, and in their mind, they think that a windfall of profit is just a matter of time,’ wrote one e-mailer who didn’t identify himself. ‘Everywhere I drive around, I see for-sale signs, but the asking prices are still way out of line.’”

“‘Sellers have the continued expectation of asking for, and getting, the moon,’ wrote Chicago real estate agent Mark Reitman. ‘On the other hand, buyers are now expecting bargain prices. This has left a huge gap in expectations.’”

“‘Yes, buyers today have a harder time affording as much home as they could two years ago, but this is the lending institutions’ fault for giving anyone with a heartbeat a loan,’ wrote Chicago real estate agent Josh Feeney.”

“And then there is the ‘I want it all. Now!’ mind-set of the American consumer, as voiced by attorney Diana Brodman Summers. ‘Once the house-buying craving sets in, the potential buyer wants a house NOW without doing their homework about how much they can afford or working at fixing their credit history.’”

“And, yes, the news media took some jabs, for spreading hysteria and weakening consumer confidence.”

“Among the articulate media critics was real estate agent Reitman, who said he has seen buyers back away from deals after hearing negative news. ‘Repeated news reports about the impending ‘bubble’ in the market have convinced buyers to sit on the sidelines and wait for those predicted prices to drop before buying. The delay in purchasing has made these reports a self-fulfilling prophecy.’”




RSS feed | Trackback URI

113 Comments »

Comment by azrenter
2007-04-09 11:52:21

+its official !! cramer says sell,sell,sell, home builders.

Comment by Curt
2007-04-09 11:55:11

Hmmm, if Cramer says sell; it might be a good time to buy.

 
Comment by FoxV
2007-04-09 13:17:36

anyone remember seeing his big rant in November where he drew a line in a sand box and said “Housing will not go lower”.

And to prove he truely meant it he said he was going out and buying a house right away.

Love to watch the MLS for that one. Good call Cramer

 
 
Comment by Michael Fink
2007-04-09 14:00:06

Get ready to blow a gasket..

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3009218597956616725

I don’t know if you have seen this before, but this is a RE shill exholting the virtues of 0 down RE purchases, and also doing some VERY shady ROI calculations (like, not taking into account the cost of the borrowed money). You will be angry, I can promise you that.

Sorry if this is a repost, I have not seen this before.

 
 
Comment by Florida Watcher
2007-04-09 12:01:19

There seems to be a lot of press trying to get people to feel sorry for folks in trouble so they can orchestrate some helicopter money and a bailout of some kind, absolutely sickening.

Comment by imploder
2007-04-09 12:55:07

Tragedy sells papers

Comment by krazy_canuck
2007-04-09 13:27:11

There is an entire section devoted to the big bad lenders and mortgage brokens on today’s CNN Money page. There is even an article called “Subprime Blame Game” where they blame:

1) Mortgage Brokers
2) Appraisers
3) Regulators
4) Lenders
5) Wall Street
6) Real Estate Agents.

No where in that article does it list:

1) General state of finacial illiteracy in America
2) Exhorbinent amount of greed displayed by professional and amateur real estate investors
3) Federal Reserve lowering rates so prices went through the roof and lowered affordability.

Truely sickens me that people can’t just realize that they fucked up and now its time to pay for there stupidity and greed. American Capitalism at its finest

Comment by NOVAwatcher
2007-04-09 14:25:16

7) Borrowers

(actually, this looks like it was added after a flood of emails)
http://tinyurl.com/36k7zu

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by seattle price drop
2007-04-09 19:15:56

Thanks for pointing out the addendum, Nova. I am really impressed by the near universal outrage exhibited once bailouts and “the poor poor ‘victims’” are mentioned. Restores my faith in my fellow Americans.

If you want to get a rise out of somebody, even those who were really resistant to the whole idea that there’s been an RE bubble, tell them about the bailout discussions from the politicians and watch them go *ballistic*!!

So, for once, people on this blog really DO have some power. The average American may not have wanted to hear you talk about the bubble, but they are VERY willing to listen to you about proposed bailouts for stupid FBs and their lenders!

The vehement reactions have surprised me. They even WANT to hear the details! They ask QUESTIONS!!!! So tell them about Dodd and his lender buddies. Tell them about all the screw-ups who lied about their incomes to get a bigger loan, or any loan at all. ETC.

For once , people are ready and willing to hear about what you’ve learned about reading this blog for the past 2 years. hallelujia.

 
 
 
Comment by krazy_canuck
2007-04-09 13:31:03

Check out CNN money site. Great post blaming everyting EXCEPT personal greed and stupidity for the surge in forclosuers because of subprime..

Sick

2007-04-09 13:49:00

When is Casey getting fitted for his orange jump suit?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Wickedheart
2007-04-09 16:00:01

Not soon enough! Did you catch the little douche’s begathon? I can’t believe people actually gave him money. What a waste! I’d rather go flush money down the toliet.

Casey owes everyone money and hasn’t paid it back so why is he worried about making a payment to Cash Call? Did they threaten to send Gary Coleman over to bite his ankles?

 
 
 
 
Comment by finnman
2007-04-09 13:21:32

And the poverty pimps are playing the race card as well to cover for their constituencies stupidity.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/04/news/economy/foreclosures/index.htm?postversion=2007040413

“The debt is forcing people to take second jobs, sell family possessions, and rent out a second room,” said Wade Henderson, the president of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

Among demographic groups, African-American and Latino homeowners hold a large proportion of the sub-prime mortgages.

They were initially developed for people having trouble qualifying for a home loan, but unscrupulous lenders have teamed with real estate agents to put people beyond their means, according to Janet Murguia, president of the National Council of La Raza.

“In many cases these loans were never a good fit,” she said. “We have been warning that Latinos were getting bad loans. It should not be a revelation, but it has taken families being taken out of their homes to shed light on this issue.”

Members of the coalition, which also includes the NAACP, acknowledged in response to a question that no lenders have committed to a moratorium on foreclosures. But Henderson, with the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, vowed to pressure the industry to throw out questionable mortgages in favor of repayment terms that homeowners can sustain.

“We have resources to generate pressure,” he said, such as “the use of civil rights law, consumer laws, congressional pressure, and grass-roots advocacy.”

oh and if you really want to be ill, CNN has a ‘who’s to blame’ feature where they blame everyone EXCEPT the borrower.

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/real_estate/0704/gallery.paly_the_subprime_blame_game/index.html

Comment by Arizona Slim
2007-04-09 13:45:45

But playing the race card is a national pastime! Well, in certain parts of the country it is…

Comment by Itsabouttime
2007-04-09 14:06:08

We should be applauding the arrival of Jesse Jackson and other civil rights activists on the scene. That will assure there will be no bailout.

On another note, maybe someone on this blog knows of, or can start, an advocacy group for renters. Seems if there is going to be a serious push in Congress to do anything, they need to see an organized opposition, ideally of affluent, priced-out-of-the-market would-be buyers, and they need to see them as people who actually followed sound financial principles, refused to sign up for unsustainable debt, even though it meant postponing their “American Dream.” They need to know this constituency votes, is organized, and is watching, and wants Congress to keep hands off so markets can return to sanity. Is there such a group? If not, is anyone here interested in starting one?

IAT

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by jerkywala
2007-04-09 14:17:07

When they make money, no problem. But when they are losers, they claim victim because they’re black, latino, etc.

What a bunch of suckers.

 
Comment by Itsabouttime
2007-04-09 14:22:13

Hmm. Don’t know any other “Americans” who take gloat when they win, but complain when they lose. No, those other groups, they always take their losses without complaint. NOT.

IAT

 
Comment by Peter T
2007-04-09 14:59:18

> On another note, maybe someone on this blog knows of, or can start, an advocacy group for renters. (…) Is there such a group?

I looked once on the web, but all I could find was an interest groups for landlords (especially large commercial appartment buildings). While their interest align sometimes with renters (Absence of bailout might lead to more renters), they do not always, especially in their opposition to ANY rent control. I am a renter and don’t like caps for rents either, but I would vote for a reasonable cap on rent increases, like CPI+3%.

 
 
 
Comment by AKRon
2007-04-09 14:39:21

What all non-houseowners have to do is jump on the ‘lower rents will help the poor and minorities’ bandwagon. Tis’ true. Why will this help? Well, it is important that the gov’t pursue policies that encourage specuvestors to rent out their empty properties. That will put downward pressure on rents and even more downward pressure on housing prices. For instance, property taxes could be set higher on unoccupied properties than occupied ones.

 
 
Comment by climber
2007-04-09 13:22:50

You never see “predatory” borrowers, though. Even though they blow the money on a vacation, a child killing, SUV or granite countertops, they are still “vicitims” of the lender.

Comment by CarsonCityNV
2007-04-09 13:54:15

“child killing SUV”?

SUV’s don’t kill people subprime loans kill people.

 
 
 
Comment by imploder
2007-04-09 12:04:24

“Among the articulate media critics was real estate agent Reitman, who said he has seen buyers back away from deals after hearing negative news. ‘Repeated news reports about the impending ‘bubble’ in the market have convinced buyers to sit on the sidelines and wait for those predicted prices to drop before buying. The delay in purchasing has made these reports a self-fulfilling prophecy.’”

This is the one of the stupidest thing I have read. The market already went through even people that should have NEVER bought, hence the subprime fiasco.

Just who does this guy think is waiting on the sidelines to buy?

Comment by pinch-a-penny
2007-04-09 12:06:32

Us???

 
Comment by sfbayqt
2007-04-09 12:19:47

It’s all part of the blame game. Instead of accepting part of the responsibility, he’s pointing at the media for reporting a “self-fulfilling prophecy”. So my question is, did he also blame the media for reporting the news of the run-up, and the “buy now or be locked out forever” nonsense?

BayQT~

Comment by lazarus
2007-04-09 12:56:45

Real estate agent Reitman is shooting the messenger. I think the real message which he is falling to acknowledge is that both he and the mortgage lenders have pissed on the head of a cobra. As if that were not enough they then turned round and mooned at the poor creature who got mad and bit them where it hurts most. Mr Reitman, that is what you get for disrespecting risk.

Comment by sleepless_near_seattle
2007-04-09 13:09:46

Yep, and unless you’re really good at Yoga, you can’t get back there to suck out the venom and no one’s going to suck it out for you.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by oxide
2007-04-09 12:38:38

Maybe they think there’s yet another layer left in the renter pool (who’s left? Illegals? Immigrants? Teenagers?), waiting for prices to come down so they can “snap up” something. My question — using what loan? Even with a return to traditional pricing, the next lower level of renters would still need an exotic mortgage — the very mortgage that’s drying up. And I’m sure all those renters are saving up for a 5-10% down payment too. (not)

It seems the only qualified buyers on the sidelines are Us. But
1) Relatively, there aren’t many of us.
2) We’re just pesky bloggers; we don’t count for much.

Comment by lurker
2007-04-09 12:48:36

maybe there are more of “us” than we think

 
Comment by Roger H
2007-04-09 12:50:10

That may not be exactly true - there are a lot of people in California, New York, etc… that would love to buy a house. However, the house has got to be affordable by conventional terms. A person would need to be able to take out a normal 30-year fixed loan at reasonable payments. Once the market produces affordable houses, the buyers will return.

 
Comment by AKRon
2007-04-09 14:19:39

The next big thing might be ‘rent to own’. Avoid the downpayment that way.

Comment by polly
2007-04-09 14:50:14

As far as I am concerned “rent to own” just means the seller hasn’t lowered the price enough.

I seriously got teased at work for saying that if I couldn’t afford a 30 year fixed mortgage, I couldn’t afford to buy a place. Co-worker thought I was nuts.

I wonder what he would have thought if he knew that I believe that even with a 20% down payment sitting in the bank?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Faster Pussycat, Sell Sell
2007-04-10 06:52:57

Hah!

I’ve explained the situation to my sister so well that she had some fun at her workplace (in the land of peace, love, granola.)

Her boss had been trying to manipulate her into buying a house so that he would have a slave forever. She told him that she was only going to buy in cash or not at all.

He was shocked, and said, “You can’t think like that. You’ll never be able to afford a place here,” and she comes back with “Oh well! I guess I’ll just have to cry myself to sleep each night.”

Hahahahahhah! The boss got the hint real quick.

 
 
 
 
Comment by eastcoaster
2007-04-09 13:00:27

Just who does this guy think is waiting on the sidelines to buy?

Echo boomers? (Aren’t the oldest of them in their early 20s?) Here’s the question - will they be as financially irresponsible as many of the boomers have been?

2007-04-09 13:50:31

Where’ve you been. The Echo Boomers already own 1 or 2 houses. Thanks to the genius Boomer Parents who’ve co-signed and help pay for them.

 
Comment by Rental Watch
2007-04-09 23:24:12

The first boomers were born in what, 1946? Making them 61 going on 62? If they had a child at age 25-30, the oldest of the echo boomers are 30-35.

 
 
Comment by Gatorfan
2007-04-09 13:01:17

I’m confused. The NAR has been consistently banging the drum that home ownership is currently at an all-time high in the U.S. However, now they’re claiming that all the buyers are sitting on the sidelines? Of course, their propaganda doesn’t add up. It’s simply foolish to think that there are masses of buyers sitting on the sidelines when there are currently more owners than ever before.

What’s sad is the average reader will read this propaganda and immediately believe it without ever putting two and two together.

 
Comment by Coloradan
2007-04-09 13:08:22

Informing people of housings unaffordability is a self fulfilling prophecy…

Oh, I get it. He is correct if you look at it this way…

If they would just buy the damn house they would see they actually can afford to buy the house.

It’s the continuing to buy the house one month after the last that’s the problem. Once it’s sold it’s not his problem anymore!

Damn!. These people make me so angry.

 
Comment by Rickoshay100
2007-04-09 15:17:51

“The delay in purchasing has made these reports a self-fulfilling prophecy.’”

“A self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction that, in being made, actually causes itself to become true.” Source: Wikipedia,

I suppose if agent Reitman was has an IQ below 50, you could excuse the fact that he overlooked the reasons for the bubble in the first place……

The Shadow Knows

 
 
Comment by Renterfornow
2007-04-09 12:06:01

To many dopes playing stupid now. Throw them out in the streets or rent where as you cannot afford to buy at these inflated prices.
Prices would have gone down long ago if it weren’t for these dopes that can’t value anything.

 
Comment by flatffplan
2007-04-09 12:06:46

I wonder if the pigFCKR mort dude made his 1/2 % or more
they get paid more , the more they fck folks
wow , RE agents and mort brokers will face a new world now that people will be seeing how these “fiduciaries” HELP them.

Comment by SLO Bear
2007-04-09 12:45:59

Over at Broker’s Outpost, I have seen some of the YSP’s (kickbacks) as high as 4.5% - yet no one in the MSM reports on this.

http://centralcoasthousingbubble.blogspot.com/

Comment by flatffplan
2007-04-09 13:05:00

wow, I hope the get slaughtered

 
 
 
Comment by Renterfornow
2007-04-09 12:07:55

who can really afford to buy? The avg person is priced out based on median incomes and these phoney stupid house prices.

Comment by seattle price drop
2007-04-09 19:31:13

“Phoney Stupid House Prices”.

Yep. that ’s just what it is. Can’t wait til everyone wakes up and smells the coffee. It’s not really such a leap…if you think about it clearly for just one minute.

People have been hypnotized by this. Some catalyst will wake them up.

Wonder if sticky notes on For Sale signs would help.. :-)

 
 
Comment by flatffplan
2007-04-09 12:13:08

wow, downtown Indy has places for 20k in decent shape
word up , yo

Comment by mongo78
2007-04-09 12:37:24

Cue stampede of CA equity locusts.

Indy does have a few great neighborhoods, with gorgeous homes for reasonable prices. It’s also full of Hoosiers. You takes the good with the bad.

Comment by eastcoaster
2007-04-09 12:57:19

I have toyed with the idea of moving to the Indy area many times.

Comment by aladinsane
2007-04-09 13:13:58

Be Indiana Jones, instead.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by mongo78
2007-04-09 13:15:40

I was raised in the midwest, so I feel free to bag on it endlessly. Don’t take my comments too seriously.

Indy is actually very family-oriented, if that’s what you’re looking for, and if you can handle the rummy midwestern weather it’s not a bad place. it is pretty conservative, and there’s not a great amount of interesting cultural attractions, but there are lots of sporting opportunities and other things to do. As a place to raise kids, it’s pretty friendly. I don’t think IPS schools are much good, but suburbs like Carmel and Fishers have good schools and very reasonble house prices.

I think the trick is finding a good-paying job. The economy there seems permanently moribund.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by indydad
2007-04-09 20:01:36

I live just outside indy and pretty much agree with all you said except your last sentence. I make a pretty good living here (low 6’s, engineer) as do most of my friends. As a matter of fact I have been actively interviewing on the east coast to move back closer to family and have had little luck because the compensation packages offered have been lower than where I am today. I thought maybe I was a unique case but have heard the same from other “tranplant” co workers/ friends.

Many work in good paying jobs in insurance, phamacuticals (sp?) banking etc. Especially those who live in Fishers & Carmel, just take a look at census data for each town. I see you point out in the smaller towns far out from indy but I think you are stating a common misconception about indianapolis.

 
 
Comment by ragerunner
2007-04-09 13:22:15

You can get a lot more nightlife, shopping and culture in downtown Indy than you can get in probably 90% of the downtowns in the rest of the country (an its a lot cheaper to buy).

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Jay_Huhman
2007-04-09 18:42:18

If you like Indy, you might check out Fort Wayne too. I was hoping the wife would get a job in FW. It seemed quite nice.

 
Comment by Brian in Chicago
2007-04-09 18:52:23

Fort Wayne. Oh God you must be joking.

I’m from Indiana so I tend to have a rosy view of the place. Fort Wayne and Terre Haute are places that should not exist.

 
Comment by Hoosier_Gold_Bug
2007-04-09 20:00:19

I also am from Ft. Wayne. It is a very tired place. There are almost no jobs besides a few military contractors. Everything else is low-pay service…It is a very conservative town. Housing values are amazing, the median price for homes is right at 100k. You can get a very nice 3 bedroom/2 bath with garage for 120-130k. Send your kids to the Southwest school district and you get a decent education.

 
 
 
 
Comment by Brian in Chicago
2007-04-09 18:50:11

Not sure if you were talking about the first blurb in Ben’s post. The Post Tribune is a Gary Indiana newspaper, so the Indianapolis Boulevard they’d be talking about is in Hammond, East Chicago, or Whiting Indiana. All very blue collar, leaning towards lower middle class.

Anyway, downtown Indianapolis is very impressive for the size and location. You have to remember that Indianapolis is only a million-person city because way back in the day Indianapolis and its neighboring cities merged their city councils in an effort to save money. You also have to remember that really crappy and dangerous sections of cities don’t exist only in California, the difference is that in most places nobody is willing to “speculate” on the houses there.

 
 
Comment by HARM
2007-04-09 12:13:16

“‘Yes, buyers today have a harder time affording as much home as they could two years ago, but this is the lending institutions’ fault for giving anyone with a heartbeat a loan,’ wrote Chicago real estate agent Josh Feeney.”

Nope, the lending institutions were simply doing what they have always been doing: maximizing profits for their shareholders. The fault lies mainly with the Fed for dropping FF rate to 1% and holding it there for nearly 3 years, while lowering reserve requirements instead of raising them. It also lies with Congress, for expanding the captial gains exemption to include flip-houses held for 24 months, and also their massive expansion of the GSEs, which gave Wall Street & investors the impression that bundled subprime & Alt-A MBS/CDOs were as safe as Treasuries and fully backed by taxpayers.

Decouple risk from reward and –suprise, surprise– an asset bubble happens!

Comment by flatffplan
2007-04-09 12:20:38

1% not since depression and they had real deflation in prices in the 30’s
GREENSCAM

 
Comment by oxide
2007-04-09 12:41:55

Great comment. I’m going to print this out. :-)

I vote for the implied government guarantee of Fannie and Freddie.

 
Comment by Coloradan
2007-04-09 13:15:45

I have a question.
So your average Joe’s flip profit that is NOT held for 24 months before selling is NOT tax exempt, correct?

What’s the deal with cap gains below $500k on primary residences?

Also, is there a time period that primary residences need to be held to qualify for the exemption?

Just curious.

Comment by HARM
2007-04-09 13:34:55

My (albeit limited) understanding of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (plus amendments after 1997), is that:

–the $250(single)/500K(married) capital gains tax exemption is a cap. If you made equal to or less than that in sale profits, you keep it all tax-free. Any profit above these limits, and capital gains taxes apply.

–the $250(single)/500K(married) cap. gains exemption applies to ANY house you own that you “occupy” as a residence for any 2 out of 5 years –nonsequential. And the legal definition of “occupy” is very flexible indeed.

–If you held the house for less than the full 24 months (2 yrs.), then the exemption is STILL pro-rated, based on the number of months you did own/occupy it. So if you “occupied’ it for 18 months, then you can still get about 75% of the tax-free capital gains you would have received if you’d held the place the full 24 months.

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/real-estate/20041018a1.asp
http://www.deadlinenews.com/capgains.html

 
Comment by HARM
2007-04-09 13:43:06

For some reason my fisrt response got blocked in moderation.
So, in short:

–the cap gains exemption can be pro-rated for holding periods less than 24-months, so it’s not a strictly binary “yes/no” exemption.

–anything gains (sale profit) less than or equal to 250K (single) or 500K (married) is 100% tax-exempt.

–must have “occupied” the property as primary residence for any 2 out of 5 years to qualify. This residency is not independently verified (read: flippers can lie their asses off) and 2 year period does not even have to be sequential.

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/real-estate/20041018a1.asp

Comment by Coloradan
2007-04-09 14:06:46

Thanks for the info.

I wonder what the tax receipt hit has been from these rules these past 10 years.

A not insubstantial amount, I would guess.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by BillF
2007-04-09 14:31:46

Probably not all that big a factor. Prior to the 1997 changes, taxes on gains were deferred as long as a person purchased a home of same or equal value. Also, there was a one-time exemption on cap gains for a primary residence, starting at age 55 (for people who wanted to downsize house for retirement).

Bill

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by Boston Mark
2007-04-09 12:21:02

It was originally $860 a month, but because she got a subprime loan after a divorce in 2004, it started adjusting, and increasing, after four months.”
Hmmm. What’s the divorce rate? I wonder how this will play out.

 
Comment by Backstage
2007-04-09 12:22:05

“‘Historically, one of the major factors of foreclosures was divorce or lack of income or unexpected medical expenses,’ said Terrence Conley, of Lake Mortgage Co.

That sounds like three major factors, not one. Could this confusion about numbers by mortgage professionals be part of the problem?

Comment by chicagobubbleblog
2007-04-09 12:24:14

Good catch!

 
Comment by DC_Too
2007-04-09 12:44:21

Bad grammar, good point. Foreclosures have historically been driven by exogenous events - divorce, illness, job loss. What we are looking at now is unprecedented - mortgage payments rising beyond what the debtor can pay, with a job, a spouse and a clean bill of health.

Comment by Chad
2007-04-09 12:53:58

Well, he certainly nailed lack of income.

 
 
Comment by az_lender
2007-04-09 15:03:27

“Now we’re seeing foreclosures caused by the inability of people to refinance these subprime loans into a more conventional mortgage.” … Wrong. The foreclosures are caused by the large numbers of large loans that were made to people who were never likely to be able to pay them off. Keeping the subprime party going would not help.

 
 
Comment by Backstage
2007-04-09 12:24:43

Ben,

I have a question. Do you look for (and post) stupid industry comments to spark debate, or is it that you simply cannot avoid them?

Comment by imploder
2007-04-09 12:31:19

It’s in 90% of the MSM articles, because that’s who the writers go to for quotes; People working in the field, i.e. “experts”…

Comment by Backstage
2007-04-09 12:43:36

But there are sooooooo many just plain stupid ones.

Comment by imploder
2007-04-09 12:49:47

They sound stupider than they probably are cause they are usually going to great lengths to spin the answer. As the real state of affairs becomes more obvious, their spins sound dumber and dumber…

And then of course, there is just the honest morons too.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by mgnyc
2007-04-09 12:50:31

that is how we got into this mess
the blind leading the blinder

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by aladinsane
2007-04-09 13:17:32

Wish they’d just steal em’ from us…

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by jd
2007-04-09 12:26:56

From Belinda’s story…

“Kovacik and her husband divorced in 2004. She got to keep the house, and her lawyer told her to refinance. Her new, subprime loan from Ameriquest was one she thought she could afford — until Ameriquest sold it to Countrywide. Now the rate keeps increasing. Kovacik can’t afford to keep up. And Countrywide will foreclose.”

“She got to keep the house…”, well, not really, “Her mortgage lender plans to foreclose…”

The refinance advice by the lawyer was likely just to get ex-hubbie off the title and little to do with whether she could afford it or not. Apparently, she could not.

“…until Ameriquest sold it to Countrywide.”

This seems to be some garbage reporting and has little to do with the outcome. Belinda was likely doomed when she signed papers with Ameriquest.

The real problem?

“Kovacik didn’t understand the terms when she signed…”

Comment by flatffplan
2007-04-09 12:28:53

maybe she can get a 2fer-sue the lawyer and the mort broker=sweet

 
Comment by SDMisfit
2007-04-09 13:14:51

I’d say the real problem is that she was lied to. The broker said one thing, the contract said another. I’m not a lawyer, but does this type of deception invalidate the contract? And if its done on a massive scale with knowing complicity by the Wall Street investment banks arent they liable too?

 
 
Comment by flatffplan
2007-04-09 12:27:05

anyone have the commision schedule for alt-a and subprime lenders ?
tia

 
Comment by Brandon
2007-04-09 12:32:09

Here’s what I don’t understand: people going into foreclosure while there home is still listed for an inflated “wishing” price. I was walking the dog last night and came upon to two new foreclosures with the notice of trustee sale posted on the door. Each home has the same owner and they are listed with a RE agent for over $30k above the amount owed as stated on the notice of trustees sale. Would it not make sense to lower the price and avoid foreclosure rather than hold out for a profit?

Comment by Boston Mark
2007-04-09 12:43:03

You must add in the broker commission and closing costs or else the owner must show up at the closing with a check. IF they can afford to, which is doubtful if they haven’t been paying the mortgage payments. If this property is FSBO, then you have a good question.

Comment by Brandon
2007-04-09 12:55:40

The loan balance on one of the homes was only $195k- on the market for $239k. I don’t think commissions and closing costs can account for the difference. Both homes are empty and mortgage holder is Aegis who “concentrates on helping those with less-than-perfect credit improve their financial situations through sensible mortgage lending options.” AKA sub-prime?

 
 
Comment by Steve W
2007-04-09 12:53:02

Not if you owe more on the loan than what you sell it for. The 30 K may also be needed to cover the closing costs, etc. And if you dont’ have it, well, hello foreclosure

 
Comment by seattle price drop
2007-04-09 19:48:39

Here’s what I noticed when I looked at the Yahoo foreclosure site:

Homes that are listed simultaneously on the MLS at a very high wishing price AND on Yahoo Foreclosure at a very low price.

For example, one was @200K on the MLS. Same house on Yahoo was 50K.
Another on the MLS for @ 500K, on Yahoo for 180K.

Looks like if they can find a greater fool to buy it off the MLS at the inflated price, they’ll go that route. Duh.

I think we’re at the beginnings of a real shake-up here. Sellers and F’d lenders both realize there are still some bozo buyers out there who think the house is actually worth 500K or 200K , whatever. So they’ll try to rope them in. The 50K/180K is the backup plan for when these foolish buyers wake up.

That’s why I love the comment above that refers to “these stupid phoney house prices” ! Nail Reality!

 
 
Comment by SDMisfit
2007-04-09 12:36:41

“t’s not just the Midwest that’s struggling. On Wednesday, civil rights groups visited Washington, D.C., and called for a six-month moratorium on foreclosures resulting from high-risk loans given to people with shaky credit, arguing that lenders should help borrowers refinance their mortgages — or face lawsuits. The groups said a predicted wave of foreclosures stems from “reckless and unaffordable loans” for which investors bear some responsibility. ”

- I absolutely agree with this. Not a bailout, but playing hardball with the Wall Street equity looters and their street hustler allies. Sue them for any technical violation of any clause in the contract or statute in the law. The RICO act might apply here. Wall Street knew exactly what was going on. It was one big racket.

Wall Street had record bonuses last year. They got paid. The street hustlers got paid too. These hyenas got fat off the equity built up over 20 yrs by an $8/hr teachers aide.

The super-rich have a greater share of the national wealth than at any time since 1929. But its not enough. They want to use the power of their Washington lobby, their billion-dollar ad budgets, and their global influence to deceive people into these loans. Then they mock their customers for being stupid. Its not a question of stupidity. The teachers aide was honest and trusting while the hustlers were devious liars. I hope some of them do jail time.

Comment by Doug in Boone, NC
2007-04-09 12:42:10

“Wall Street knew exactly what was going on. It was one big racket.”

I AGREE, I AGREE, I AGREE!

 
Comment by oxide
2007-04-09 12:58:55

That still punishes us for being responsible savers. Even if not a single dime of my tax money goes to help these FB’s, I’m STILL being punished. The teacher’s aide gets to remain in “more house than she can afford,” while I, a responsible saver, was forced to “throw away my money on rent” for years, while simultaneously being called a bitter renter.

Comment by oxide
2007-04-09 13:03:34

Well, I wasn’t “forced” to rent. I guess it just doesn’t pay to be old-fashioned anymore.

 
Comment by SDMisfit
2007-04-09 13:10:38

I’d agree in the case of the new buyers and the flippers. They need to be foreclosed on and the prices need to drop. But in this case the teachers aide (Belinda Kovacik) was living within her means and probably could have managed the divorce if she hadn’t been preyed on by the equity looters and mortgage hustlers: excerpt from article –>

“She and her ex-husband moved in as renters in 1986, then bought it for $60,000 in 1989. It wasn’t a big move for Belinda; she had grown up just a few houses down the street in Whiting.”

After raising her children there…

“Kovacik and her husband divorced in 2004. She got to keep the house, and her lawyer told her to refinance. Her new, subprime loan from Ameriquest was one she thought she could afford — until Ameriquest sold it to Countrywide. Now the rate keeps increasing. Kovacik can’t afford to keep up. And Countrywide will foreclose.”

Ameriquest, Countrywide… present at the scene of the crime again.

“Oh God, the memories,” Kovacik said as she stood in her kitchen one recent morning. “I buried my dog in this yard. My children were raised here. But I feel like I’m being forced out.”

Comment by Recovering Homeowner
2007-04-09 14:13:20

They bought the house for $60K in 1989, fast forward to 2004 (15 years into the mortgage), they divorce and she refinances for… how could the mortgage not be substantially paid down after 15 years? How much was left to pay off - that’s what I want to know.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by SDMisfit
2007-04-09 14:55:57

Thats what made her an attractive target. A Credit Union would probably have refinanced her with LOWER payments thanks to much lower interest rates (2004) and the high equity — even after taking some cash out.
But the hyenas found her first.

A pack of hyenas can reduce a zebra carcass to a pile of bones in 15-minutes flat. Wall Street can do the same to home equity.

 
Comment by polly
2007-04-09 15:00:31

Substantial equity is the problem. I’ll bet she had to buy out his half of the equity in the divorce settlement. He walked with cash. She kept the house. And she had to make the new payments without his income - though if they still had minor kids he may have made child support payments for a while.

 
Comment by Peter T
2007-04-09 15:15:03

She probably had to pay out her ex-husband, at 2004’s appraised high prices. That might explain some of the problems, but it is still an incomplete view and bad journalism - drawing an emotional picture but not giving the numbers. Where are ALL the relevant numbers? New mortgage amount? Any cash-out? If yes, how much and why?

 
 
Comment by seattle price drop
2007-04-09 20:12:18

Same thing happened to neighbors in ‘04. It was suggested to them that they get out of their fixed loan and into an ARM. The payment was lower for about 4 months then increased above what their original fixed had been. They lost/sold their house.

My neighbors acknowledge it was “their fault for being stupid”. Sad, but what are you gonna do? The only way around it is for Americans to get over this idea that RE agents and lenders are trustworthy professionals who can count on to make their decisions for them.

Now, this woman, if the story is to be believed, was advised by her lawyer to get into an ARM. Yuck. That’s a tough one. Even *I* think lawyers are supposed to be smart! Hopefully though, if I was at a low fixed, I would have asked some questions about this unpredictable new loan.

That’s the problem with the bailout talk. There are too many individual cases and circumstances. And there’ll be more and more coming down the pike.

I’m the type who usually tries to and enjoys finding creative solutions to problems. But this is one problem that got so far out of control. The time for easy solutions is long past. I’d throw in the towel on this can of worms and then just try to make sure it never happens again (yeah I know, fat chance!, of it never happening again that is).

Then again, if enough people lose their homes over this, it could be generations before a similar thing would happen again. So perhaps that really IS the best solution. Just let the chips fall.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by eastcoaster
2007-04-09 13:12:13

Does she really get to keep her house? Or put off foreclosing for 6 months? If someone can’t afford to refinance now, what makes anyone think they can in 6 months?

Man, this is all such a mess.

 
Comment by Itsabouttime
2007-04-09 13:13:00

I AGREE, I AGREE, I AGREE (with Oxide).

IAT

 
Comment by az_lender
2007-04-09 14:59:29

I’m on oxide’s side. No moratorium. Hey, I’m a lender. If somebody defaults, I’m gonna foreclose, or otherwise get hold of the property. In cases of clear-cut lender fraud, there are remedies available, but borrower-stupidity will not be cured by mollycoddling.

 
 
 
Comment by Backstage
2007-04-09 12:40:47

“And then there is the ‘I want it all. Now!’ mind-set of the American consumer

And who, pray tell, is responsible for this attitude? Could it be:

A. Credit companies who sell credit, free money, all sorts as a way to “enhance’ your income (and destroy your future).

B. Madison Avenue and that ilk who tell us that we are not complete or not good enough if we fail to spend and spend it now.

C. The Government(s) who act the same way by spending every tax dollar that comes their way and more? Government(s) who, in the face of internal crisis and war, suggest that now would be a good time to go to take a trip and spend even more money than you have?

D. The Fed who suggested that ARMs were a good way afford a home?

E. The consumer who cannot stand up to the onslaught of ads and offers for money and houses and get rich quick schemes, etc.

F. All of the above

Comment by tcm_guy
2007-04-09 15:53:47

I WANT MY MAYPO AND I WANT IT NOW!!!

Got 10% down?

 
Comment by Jim D
2007-04-09 18:32:50

The answer is G: The person who signed the mortgage, printed in English. If you can’t understand the contract, don’t sign it. How hard is this to understand? If you must sign something you don’t understand, pay a good lawyer to explain it - you’re spending a half million, and you can’t spring for $500 for legal representation? You deserve to be screwed. Really. Really. Hard.

 
 
Comment by ChillintheOC
2007-04-09 13:13:28

“Wall Street knew exactly what was going on. It was one big racket.”
———————————————————————
From Wall Street: “I’m just shocked, shocked I tell you that these types of loans were being made!!”

 
Comment by GetStucco
2007-04-09 13:30:23

‘Repeated news reports about the impending ‘bubble’ in the market have convinced buyers to sit on the sidelines and wait for those predicted prices to drop before buying. The delay in purchasing has made these reports a self-fulfilling prophecy.’

Fifty subprime lenders going down in flames have nothing to do with a sudden dearth of buyers — it is all those repeated news reports about the impending ‘bubble’ that have scared off the buyers.

 
Comment by Rhea
2007-04-09 13:33:01

May the ‘gap in expectations’ between sellers and buyers grow to be cavernous.

 
Comment by CarsonCityNV
2007-04-09 13:34:55

“I buried my dog in this yard.”

Does that have to stay when she moves out or can she take it with her?

Comment by Arizona Slim
2007-04-09 13:49:56

Oh, Carson, you evil person. (Actually, I had the same thought.)

Comment by don
2007-04-09 15:06:12

if she torches the house she should leave the dog.

 
 
 
Comment by NoVAMtgBkr
2007-04-09 14:01:44

Divorces/property settlements trigger more refi’ing than you can imagine. I bet hubby surrendered his interest in the house as part of the property settlement and probably got his 1/2 of the equity in cash (2- 3 years ago at the peak of the market). Extra cash was probably extracted to pay the attorney’s fees (teacher’s aids usually don’t have retainer money laying around). She got the house and probably thought she made out like a bandit even though she really couldn’t afford the mortgage on her own dime. He won - she lost. It could have been the other way around. As much as I hate Countrywide - I don’t see what they did wrong except buy the servicing.

 
Comment by AKRon
2007-04-09 14:08:59

“Hollins fell behind on her mortgage payments during a long-term illness, which has kept her home from her $20-per-hour public service job since last summer. An officer first knocked on Hollins’ door a few days before Christmas, six months after she started falling behind on her mortgage.”

This is one thing that I am getting really tired of. Have you noticed that most of the anecdotes about FB going under in the MSM involve illness, divorces, job loss, etc. These stories are (purposely?) missing the point. People with medical problems, failed businesses, etc. have always had a fair chance of going into foreclosure (and in some cases, such as severe medical problems, perhaps deserve some sort of support). The way in which the present death spiral is different is that people who are not losing their jobs, who are not ill, are going under because they speculated or bought a house that was too expensive. The MSM articles confound the causes, hiding the real problems.

 
Comment by NoVAMtgBkr
2007-04-09 14:22:26

I’m a 55 year-old baby boomer who has done well in real estate. However, houses have just gotten too damn expensive. I get treated like a leper when I say that in my circles. Anybody that has owned for more than a couple of years ago has got a vested interest in keeping the prices high for selfish reasons. And that’s all it is - SELFISHNESS. My kids, your kids, are screwed!!

Comment by polly
2007-04-09 15:37:12

I’m too old to be your kid and I’m still screwed. Funny thing, I thought that when I was in jobs I hated and wanted to leave - that was a bad time to take on a mortgage and long-term obligation. Now that I have a job I like and money in the bank for a down payment and an outstanding credit score (when the rental office manager checked it, she said she had never seen a higher one), I can’t afford the sort of home an adult wants to live in.

Guess I am an FS (f-ed saver).

 
 
Comment by Pondering the Mess
2007-04-09 16:09:42

Yep, that’s the way the “grubber-mint” wants all of us savers to be - hosed! They’ll do whatever they can to drag this thing out because heaven forbid houses should be affordable! We just can’t have people living within their means in modern, post-logic America, can we? Argh!

 
Comment by SKB
2007-04-09 20:59:53

This must be the most stupid statement I have read to date:

“Those who can afford to will buy while those who can’t must rent”.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/end-housing-bubble-should-have/story.aspx?guid=%7B080E214B-4E40-482E-9A1F-F9000ADFD296%7D

 
Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)
You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

Trackback responses to this post