May 19, 2010

The Salesman Made It Sound Like A Smart Move

A report from the Connecticut Post. “In Connecticut there are thousands of foreclosures, according to the state Judicial website. Despite a foreclosure crisis hammering the nation for three years, distressed homeowners who want to keep their homes are facing a disjointed and uncoordinated process that has left many sitting in homes for months without knowing their fate. Photos of Judy and Jim Pepe in high school hang on the wall. They also have their wedding photo on the wall. They’ve been able to hang those pictures there since 1978 when they bought the home — their first and only.”

“But now, in their twilight years, the pair are worried that the pictures will have to come down and they will have to move because of a bad decision a few years ago and some bad luck. The Pepes refinanced into an interest-only loan a few years ago. They said they didn’t realize what they were getting into, but the salesman who gave them the Countrywide loan made it sound like a smart move. Now, they think they owe about $169,000 on the house.”

“They fell behind when Jim had some medical problems. They were able to get Bank of America to give them a temporary modification that put their payments at $975 a month, but then Judy fell ill and was hospitalized and they missed the first two months of payments. Since she’s been out, they haven’t missed since. Still, Bank of America, which took over Countrywide, sent them a letter saying the modification would not be made permanent.”

“‘We don’t want to be out on the street,’ Judy says. ‘We’re just in limbo. We don’t know where we stand,’ Jim says.”

“William Raveis, CEO of Raveis Real Estate, Mortgage and Insurance, has more than 35 years in the business and is plainly disturbed with ‘the ineptitude of the banks.’ Raveis said in the 1990s, when the nation faced a similar situation, the government and banks handled it better. The bad assets were taken away from the banks by the Resolution Trust Corporation, a government entity that could make decisions much more quickly on what properties would be foreclosed upon and which could be saved. This time around, the banks got money and kept the assets.”

“‘They got billions and trillions of money from (taxpayers) and they have no incentive to do deals,’ Raveis said. ‘If you were getting money and had bad assets, you don’t have to get rid of it so fast.’”

“Bridgeport Mayor Bill Finch said it’s unconscionable what’s happened. ‘I can’t believe some people didn’t go to jail,’ Finch said of the financiers who gave out loans without verifying incomes or sometimes falsifying documents during the housing boom. ‘Instead, we bailed them out.’”

The Boston Herald in Massachusetts. “Foreclosure petitions, the first step in seizing a home, increased to 2,431 last month, up from 2,013 in April of last year, a nearly 21 percent jump, according to The Warren Group. Foreclosure deeds, which represent completed foreclosures, surged nearly 80 percent to 1,372 in April from 764 in April 2009. Foreclosure deeds, which represent completed foreclosures, surged nearly 80 percent to 1,372 in April from 764 in April 2009.”

“Timothy Warren, CEO of The Warren Group, noted that the time it takes for a Massachusetts property to move from the first stage of the foreclosure process to auction has shrunk to 138 days, down from 234 days in Massachusetts in 2008. ‘We believe that the faster track to auction stage in foreclosures is due to processing improvements that lenders have made as they become more familiar with compliance on government programs and regulations regarding foreclosures,’ Warren said.”

“A Boston developer bought 41 unsold condominiums within walking distance of Fenway Park at a foreclosure auction for $13.5 million. The Davis Cos., one of the region’s largest privately held owners and developers of commercial real estate, paid an average of $329,268 per unit for the dwellings at Audubon Park. But now Jonathan Davis, the company’s CEO, is figuring out what to do with them.”

“Completed in 2007, Audubon Park includes 53 studios and one- and two-bedroom condos. The six-story development’s finishes include marble bathrooms, stainless-steel appliances, granite countertops and bamboo wood flooring. But after the city’s housing market deteriorated, Robert Fox, the previous developer, sold only 12 units. Later, the remaining units went to foreclosure.”

“‘It was a double whammy,’ said Davis. ‘First, Fox was faced with a slow market, and then the lender stopped funding the project.’”

“Davis said he is considering renting the remained units or hiring a firm to sell them. The initial dozen units fetched from $289,600 to $700,000, according to the Suffolk Registry of Deeds. ‘I hope we will make money,’ said Davis. ‘I don’t know if we’ll make a lot of money, but I feel good that at the price we paid, we won’t lose money.’”

The Courier Post in New Jersey. “In 2005, when Wildwood’s Marina Bay was still on the blueprints, the opening bid for a slice of the Jersey Shore was $495,000. Since then, the market for vacation homes has wilted like cotton candy dropped on this resort’s celebrated boardwalk on a hot afternoon.”

“Last year, Marina Bay’s developer filed for protection from creditors under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. On May 23, the bank will auction off 28 three-bedroom condominiums at the bay-view complex, which once had price tags as high as $699,000. ‘Wildwood is an overbuilt market with too much product and is likely to struggle for a very long time,’ said Jeffrey Otteau of Otteau Valuation Group, an East Brunswick-based real estate analyst.’

“While New Jersey currently has a nine-month inventory of unsold homes, the backlog in Cape May County is 22 months. In Wildwood, it is expected to take 29 months to find buyers for the glut of properties. RealtyTrac said prices have declined 20 percent in the town in the past 12 months.”

“In Wildwood Crest, 25 condos carved out of the former Nassau Inn will be auctioned May 16. ‘No distress here, just nice people who are getting older and want to sell their properties and get on with their lives,’ said Clinton-based auctioneer Max Spann.”

“Nassau Inn on the Beach features ocean views, furnished one-bedroom, one-bath units, a heated pool and a game room. ‘There is a management company that changes the sheets and takes care of things,’ Spann added. ‘We think that will appeal to buyers who want to stay there a couple of weeks a year and rent it out the rest of the time to help pay the mortgage.’”

“The minimum bid for the units, previously priced at $256,000, is $55,000.”

The Press of Atlantic City in New Jersey. “Home builders say that while the rest of the nation has been in a severe recession, they have been in a depression. From 1.8 million housing starts in 2006, the industry was cut to less than a third of its former self with a low of 553,000 starts last year, the National Association of Home Builders says. Sales of new single-family homes plunged 65 percent, from 1 million to 372,000.”

“The home-building slump has nearly halted the large new developments that were common in the growth townships of southern New Jersey during the mid-decade housing boom. Mary B. Anderson, director of sales and marketing for Tim Schaeffer Communities, sees inventory coming back more slowly than demand. ‘All builders have scaled back. The last thing they need is to be sitting on ground that is not doing anything,’ she said.”

“Anderson was an independent home builder before the downturn, and might do some building again in a joint venture with Tim Schaeffer Communities. ‘I’ve still got two lots. I’m sitting on those like a lot of builders, waiting for the market to turn around,’ she said. ‘We’re all just treading water and hanging in there.’”

Crain’s New York Business. “When Michael Lefkowitz’s client was offered $12 million for a Brooklyn apartment building, 12 times what he’d paid for it 30 years earlier, he jumped at the opportunity. The client, who declined to be named, then moved quickly to defer taxes on his 2007 sale by pouring the proceeds and more into the purchase of several small shopping centers across the country. During the recession, however, several of the chains went bust, pushing the shopping centers to the brink of foreclosure.”

“‘My client went from owning a good-quality property in New York City and making a large profit on its sale to having several foreclosures to deal with,’ says Mr. Lefkowitz, a partner at law firm Rosenberg & Estis. Cruelest of all, his client also owes the government millions of dollars in back taxes on the original Brooklyn apartment house sale.”

“Many other New York landowners are finding themselves in the same predicament, as so-called 1031 exchanges that they made years ago are pulled apart by the downdraft in property prices. With the value of many of those purchases down 30% to 60% and with some targeted for foreclosure, the owners find themselves in a bind. If they are forced into a foreclosure, they would not only lose out on that transaction, but would have to pony up huge capital-gains taxes on their earlier sales.”

“As a result, many owners who conducted 1031 exchanges during better economic times are feeling trapped in their money-losing investments. During the market boom, debt was cheap and plentiful, and many buyers relied heavily on borrowings to fund their deals. With property values down, often below the value of the mortgages, these owners find themselves with little or no equity to cover the taxes that are due on their earlier transactions, according to Lou Weller, a principal at Deloitte Tax.”

“Faced with bad news on virtually all fronts, many of those involved in 1031 deals are calling it a day. ‘Today, landlords are looking to unload their properties, pay taxes on their capital gains before the rates are raised and pocket whatever is left,’ says Peter DeCheser, a managing director at Jones Lang LaSalle.”

City Limits in New York. “Sara Monestime was one of 72 families, most of them first-time home buyers, who in 2004 bought into the Spencer Street condominiums in Bedford-Stuyvesant only to find a year later that their investments were worthless because the developer, Mendel Brach, failed to comply with zoning rules when he constructed four nine-story buildings in a neighborhood typically capped at five stories.”

“Because the buildings were rife with defects and building code violations, in 2005 the city revoked each building’s temporary certificate of occupancy–the document that entitles owners to legally occupy, refinance or sell their property. Events left buyers like Monestine owning properties that have no legal right to exist. With no certificate of occupancy, the residents have been forced to keep up on mortgage payments on properties they cannot legally sell or refinance. They worry that their money is going into a black hole.”

“Brach settled the suit by consenting to a judgment of $10.9 million to be awarded to the Spencer Street residents. He also agreed not to sell condos for five years. The agreement did not require him to admit fault. But so far the residents, who paid between $280,000 and $445,000 for their condos, have received little money and are struggling to come up with the millions of dollars needed for building repairs.”

“The residents themselves are the sort of newcomers associated during the real estate boom with gentrification in once-marginal neighborhoods around the city. From 2000 through 2008, the city added 170,000 new living units, according to the Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy, many of them in ‘areas of the city that hadn’t seen large-scale building for some time.’”

“So far, most of the money that the residents have received has been in the form of garnished wages from Brach’s job at a Brooklyn Bakery, which amounts to just $280, or $3.88 per unit, a month. Spencer Street’s lawyer says that Brach may be trying to hide assets. Monestime is unsure how to proceed. On one hand, she wants the bureaucratic and financial nightmare to end. On the other is her desire for Brach to be held accountable. ‘We’re going to drop a $10 million judgment for air rights that should have been ours from the beginning?’ she says. ‘It’s just so twisted.’”

CBS News in New York. “Here’s the problem with the Obama Administration’s approach to foreclosure prevention: it depends entirely on the banks voluntarily doing the right thing, even when homeowners have held up their end of the bargain to prevent a foreclosure.”

“Take the case of three homeowners in Queens, New York. Permanent modifications denied. Delinquency reports to credit rating agencies issued. And the cherry on top–foreclosure. These three homeowners-each working full-time, with at least one job, working up to six days a week–are fighting back. With the help of the Urban Justice Center, a non-profit legal services provider in New York, they filed suit last Tuesday against the bank in federal court in Brooklyn.”

“The lawsuit alleges that Chase instructed homeowner Alex Lam to deliberately miss mortgage payments in order to become eligible for a modification. Lam bought his house in 2002 and refinanced in 2005. Lam says he skipped payments in February and March of 2009 on the bank’s advice. Those are the only payments he has ever missed but he now faces foreclosure. Chase says its Net Present Value (NPV) test–required by HAMP to determine if the value of a modification is worth more to investors than a foreclosure–is the reason Lam isn’t receiving a modification.”

“A Treasury spokesman told me the Administration is very concerned about moral hazard–rewarding people for taking out loans they never should have taken. But clearly the most hazardous moral around is continuing to cater to the banks’ interests. It doesn’t matter whether someone is losing their home because of a bad subprime mortgage, a lost job, or because they owe more on the mortgage than the home is now worth. Every foreclosure decreases the property value of a neighbor’s home. Every dollar lost in property value–and over $7 trillion in wealth has now been lost by American households–reduces local and state revenues.”

“As John Taylor, CEO of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, recently put it, ‘Everybody has a dog in this hunt when it comes to these foreclosures.’”

“Tamara Williams lives with her two sons in a home she purchased in 2005 and has made three on-time trial payments of $1,274 this winter. She fell behind on her mortgage when she lost her job in November 2008, and went into foreclosure four months later. She now works doing post-renovation and demolition cleanup for a contractor and also attends school. ‘The Obama administration’s program was supposed to give people like me a lifeline and a chance to save our homes. But if the banks won’t play by the rules, what else are we supposed to do?’ said Williams.”




RSS feed | Trackback URI

101 Comments »

Comment by rusty
2010-05-19 06:00:56

The Pepes refinanced into an interest-only loan a few years ago. They said they didn’t realize what they were getting into, but the salesman who gave them the Countrywide loan made it sound like a smart move. Now, they think they owe about $169,000 on the house.”
——————
So a year or two from paying the house off completely, they decide to cash in, and risk it all? Darwin award winners. No Pity. Where did all that money go?

Comment by Jim A.
2010-05-19 06:55:16

One suspects that wasn’t their FIRST refinance. That’s the frustrating problem with much of the reporting about FBs. The story doesn’t quite add up, and we’re left guessing at the rest of the story.

Comment by sfbubblebuyer
2010-05-19 08:56:59

You don’t need the quite qualifier in there. Their stories never come close to adding up. We need somebody with a megaphone to show up at every simpering FB sob story interview to yell “WHERE’S THE F’ING MONEY YOU DEADBEAT?!?!”

Comment by Chris M
2010-05-19 10:50:45

Oh, ow! My vague, undefined medical problems are hurting me! Have pity on me!

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by sold in 05
2010-05-19 11:02:38

dont these peope carry health ins….most plans offer at least 5 million in major medical…no pity party here, just people who want everyone else to take care of them…

 
Comment by Jim A.
2010-05-19 11:30:09

Hey, I do reserve possible sympathy here. Health insurance is PROHIBITIVLY expensive for the elderly. And frankly, the exact nature of their health difficulties aren’t germane or any of my business. But “We had to sell the house to pay the doctor bills,” isn’t QUITE the same as “We got a crazy mortgage we didn’t understand to try and stay in a house we could no longer afford.” If the health problems were that bad that they could never have afforded to pay the bills, they should have sought bankruptcy protection.

 
 
 
 
Comment by SMF
2010-05-19 09:40:19

You know, I keep going back to no real recourse available for those who refinanced themselves to oblivion.

Help is available for those who bought the ‘traditional’ way, while those who overtly speculated get no help at all. Which is the way it should be.

So when I hear about these people being denied modification, I wonder how many are because their equity was liberated for other means besides health and home?

 
Comment by Big V
2010-05-19 15:17:18

They are only playing dumb now because it suits them. Anyone who takes out a loan knows that the loan has to be paid back. These people are experienced mortgage payers, so I don’t believe they didn’t realize that their payment was too good to be true.

As a matter of fact, I have seen the bill sent by banks to people with I/O loans. There are always multiple line items for the posssible payments: One line item says “full payment”, with some large number; One line item says “interest only”, with some smaller number; A third line item may say “minimum payment”, with some tiny number. How is it possible for someone to “not know” what type of loan/payment they have?

Comment by Arizona Slim
2010-05-19 16:30:30

Three years ago, I started to get nervous about my mortgage.

So, I trekked over to my credit union and asked a staff member to help me review my mortgage paperwork. The CU didn’t write the mortgage, but they do have a policy of helping members with questions of the financial sort. And I wanted to be sure that I didn’t have an ARM.

I didn’t. It was a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage. Just the way I wanted it. I was worried that my mortgage originator, which has since gotten in BIG trouble with the state of Arizona, had pulled a bait and switch on me.

The credit union employee pointed out the part of the paperwork that said how high the payment could go. That’s for the ARM people. And that part, in my case, was blank.

 
 
Comment by potential buyer
2010-05-19 17:23:11

Not to mention they ‘may be out on the street’. I guess there are no rentals where they live.

 
 
Comment by jeannie
2010-05-19 06:04:26

a bad decision a few years ago and some bad luck.

more euphemisms for stupid.

Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb-thrower
2010-05-19 07:01:02

More euphemisms for expensive education:

“Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other.

– Benjamin Franklin –”

Comment by DinOR
2010-05-19 07:47:02

I don’t have any malice toward these people. Whatever the article failed to mention, it ‘did’ mention this was the “first and only” home, dating back as far as 1978 I believe.

They weren’t your basic Casey Serin specuvestors and they probaly ‘were’ duped. Where I think you could challenge their approach was that, given their age, how hard ‘is’ it to imagine that health concerns weren’t that far around the corner!

I mean, at some point, it’s a given. Why didn’t their children say anything to stop this?

Oh….

Comment by In Montana
2010-05-19 07:57:54

People used to have a built-in bias against second mortgages. Second mortgages were for losers. Things had to be really bad to do that. I’ve still got it.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by arizonadude
2010-05-19 08:11:35

That would mean you would have to have a down payment, so 80’s.

 
Comment by DinOR
2010-05-19 08:13:09

In Montana,

Right, as well it should be. I think the broader message though and one The American Consumer is getting loud and clear is that:

ALL Mortgages SUCK! Period.

Don’t get one. They’re -never- paid off and the first time you get so much as your boo-boo in a wringer.., it will COST you to access that and make it liquid.

 
Comment by Ben Jones
2010-05-19 08:13:51

Yeah, we’re heading into some dangerous territory here, IMO. There are so many foreclosures due to refis, that the media is trying to change ‘conventional’ wisdom. We are told it’s ok to BORROW against the house to finance bars or because you have health problems, etc. Where does this lead? Is everyone going to have the god-given right to borrow their way out of tough patches in their lives from here on out?

My parents paid off their house when they were about 50. If some ’salesman’ had tried to talk them into borrowing against it after that, my mom would have chased that person out the door with a frying pan.

 
Comment by scdave
2010-05-19 08:45:13

I know many small business people who use their houses line of credit to operate their business…Why ?? Its the cheapest, easiest and fastest credit they can get…Some times the balance is zero…Sometimes it could be hundreds of thousands if they take on a business opportunity that requires up-front funding…

 
Comment by DinOR
2010-05-19 08:48:52

“out the door with a frying pan” LOL!

( And good for Mom btw )

Ben, even -prior- to The Boom, I was downright depressed about my own mortgage situation. I guess having been military, my whole mindset was built around having everything Paid Off by the time you’d be set to retire in your early 40’s.

They’re just structured in such a way that there really is no winning? Here’s ‘my’ problem w/ the whole arrangement. To assume that over a THIRTY YEAR span ( in ‘any’ person’s life ) that there will be:

No divorce ( really? )
Never so much as (1) day of illness
Not a day’s missed work
No lay offs at the plant

Everything is just hunky dory for (3) consecutive decades. How many people do we know that that describes? Savings aside ( yes that’s key ) the odds are so stacked against you I’m not sure why anyone would ever agree to it in the first place?

 
Comment by DinOR
2010-05-19 09:17:39

scdave,

No, we’re not oblivious to that tactic, and, in the right hands it shouldn’t be a problem necessarily? The slippery slope that Ben describes ( I believe ) is when people that have -zero- biz experience “thought it might be ‘fun’ to try something new?”

We’ve noticed this in ample abundance here in Portland. In fact we have a name for it “Groovy Retail” where yet another start-up selling tie-dyed merchandise is funded w/ MEW/401k pilfering.

I mean c’mon, who wouldn’t want to run a bar or do all kinds of fun things were people hang out, socialize etc? Having access to capital and having a business plan are two different things. Yesterday John had a great post on just how difficult it can be for even -established- smaller biz’s to secure credit. I think it’s for a reason.

 
Comment by Jim A.
2010-05-19 09:28:07

Much of what y’all have said is true. But with a conventional FRM, the Principle and Interest doesn’t go up, unlike rents. (yes rents in many areas have been falling lately, but over the long term nominal rents go up) You really don’t have to stay for 30 years to start seeing some benefit from purchasing with a 30yr FRM. After say 20 years there’s a good chance that your monthly payments are LESS than equivalent rent. While it possible to save enough to buy outright without a mortgage, (I actually know somebody whose parents did just that) it’s made very difficult by the necessity of paying rent in the meantime.

But purchasing housing and living there for anything less that a decade is normally a losing proposition. The whole “flipping” phenomena was one of the things that convinced me early on that we were seeing a bubble in RE.

 
Comment by DinOR
2010-05-19 10:20:18

Jim A,

The voice of reason as always. At least initially, that was very much the path the wife and I were on. In fact, our PITI was -under- equiv. rents within the first year!

It was just an opportune time in the late 80’s in OR, so your assessment stands. There was also a window where we could have “frozen the cost of living” in 1994 but there was much that needed to be done to the house.

Overall, it’s time for a good many of us to buy much less house than we can afford, knuckle under and make extra payments and get it over with! The MID just isn’t worth it and the Std. Deduction going forward should be ample.

 
Comment by Jim A.
2010-05-19 10:42:44

I would argue that it ALWAYS a good time to buy less house than you can afford. Now transaction costs are high enough that you want to buy enough house that you will still be happy living there for the next 10 years. But you shouldn’t spend so much on housing that you’re not putting a bit away every month for emergencies and retirement.

 
Comment by mikey
2010-05-19 10:50:32

“My parents paid off their house when they were about 50. If some ’salesman’ had tried to talk them into borrowing against it after that, my mom would have chased that person out the door with a frying pan”

My dear old mom lives in the country and still has her trusty old 16 guage Reminton pump shotgun and a wing shot that put a few of the old Pro’s to shame.

When she racks that, you just know that “somethings” going down.

(on the other hand, her two little fat black labs are very friendly and would willing open the car door for burglers just to go for a ride in their car)

:)

 
Comment by Arizona Slim
2010-05-19 10:54:18

My dear old mom lives in the country and still has her trusty old 16 guage Reminton pump shotgun and a wing shot that put a few of the old Pro’s to shame.

Were your mom and my father separated at birth? Y’know, in a fraternal twins sort of way?

Reason for my question: Dad’s in his eighties. He can still hit the black ring of a target at 100 yards. With iron sights.

 
Comment by michael
2010-05-19 11:06:05

“…my mom would have chased that person out the door with a frying pan.”

same here…but it would have been my dad…with his 12 guauge (with rat shot…nothing fatal but hurts like hell).

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-05-19 11:13:07

“People used to have a built-in bias against second mortgages. Second mortgages were for losers. Things had to be really bad to do that. I’ve still got it.”

I have a built-in bias against first mortgages when Uncle Sam is the only lender in the game.

 
Comment by cdoc
2010-05-19 11:25:41

While it is NEVER a good time to buy a house you can’t afford, I don’t think it is a good time to buy a house you can afford either. Why should I buy a house just because I can afford it? Because if I don’t I’ll be priced out forever? HAHAHA

 
Comment by Jim A.
2010-05-19 11:35:04

Cdoc: It would seem that at this point there is little downside risk to waiting. We’re unlikly to see much REAL appreication in house prices for more than a decade. If we have a bout of 70s-80s style inflation, we might see some NOMINAL appreciation, but houses are likely to be as affordable after it as they were before.

 
Comment by Michael Viking
2010-05-19 12:18:59

People used to have a built-in bias against second mortgages. Second mortgages were for losers.

Ah, but that’s the beauty of the whole scam! People haven’t been getting second mortgages. They’ve been taking out their equity. Bankers took away the stigma by coming up with a euphemism for the second mortgage and then convinced Joe Rube that it was only right that he got his money out of his house.

 
Comment by Chris M
2010-05-19 13:55:59

it was only right that he got his money out of his house.

It’s not a loan! He’s just “liberating his equity”.

 
 
Comment by Arizona Slim
2010-05-19 10:51:05

I mean, at some point, it’s a given. Why didn’t their children say anything to stop this?

I have a relative who, shall we say, isn’t as mentally sharp as he once was. About a year ago, he asked me about doing business with a company that I’d never heard of. But, being the Internet bird-dog that I am, I did some research on ‘em.

What I found wasn’t good.

I urged this relative to stay far, far away from this outfit. So did at least two other people.

Well, guess what. He decided to do business with them.

All I can say is that I tried.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by DinOR
2010-05-19 11:24:36

Arizona Slim,

“All I can say is that I tried”

Yeah, I quit trying to carry the entire weight of The Bubble around w/ me everywhere I went a couple of months ago. What bothered me was that I’d come to think saying “I tried” sounded like the lamest excuse in the world.

To be fair, that’s usually the way it’s being offered. The dishwasher is overflowing on the kitchen floor, the baby is crying and there’s nothing ready for dinner, but.., “Dad ‘tried’ “. Well evidently not very hard?

That’s just the way bubble bloggers were brought up. Anything less than perfection is, might as well not been done at all! But after a min. of six years of this garbage, yes, I TRIED!

 
Comment by Jim A.
2010-05-19 11:37:55

Circa 2006, my mother and I persuaded my brother in law that buying an investment property was a bad idea. I explained to him that in MD after foreclosure, the bank can go after you for THE REST OF THEIR MONEY.

 
Comment by In Montana
2010-05-19 15:04:07

“Having access to capital and having a business plan are two different things.”

You mean, selling pirate stuff is not a plan?

 
 
 
 
Comment by Timmy Boy
2010-05-19 08:55:57

Ok… well… if they ADMIT that it was a “bad decision”.. then accept the consequences… & MOVE OUT!!

But Noooooooooooo….. they now blame the bank for not “working with them”.

F**kers!!

 
Comment by mikey
2010-05-19 10:31:48

“Completed in 2007, Audubon Park includes 53 studios and one- and two-bedroom condos. The six-story development’s finishes include marble bathrooms, stainless-steel appliances, granite countertops and bamboo wood flooring. But after the city’s housing market deteriorated, Robert Fox, the previous developer, sold only 12 units. Later, the remaining units went to foreclosure.”

Mr. Foxy…

It would seem that the old Chinese Marble-SS-Granite- Bamboo slivers under your greedy fingers torture… gotcha.

:)

 
 
Comment by Natalie
2010-05-19 06:11:13

“In Connecticut there are thousands of foreclosures . . . Photos of Judy and Jim Pepe in high school hang on the wall. . . They’ve been able to hang those pictures there since 1978 when they bought the home — their first and only. But now, in their twilight years, the pair are worried that the pictures will have to come down and they will have to move . . . Now, they think they owe about $169,000 on the house.”

This should have strictly been a story about why you should never pull equity out of your house unless it is an absolute emergency, but instead it fell to the level of bank bashing because the banks haven’t agreed to a modification. Also it appears that the majority of health problems discussed, if not all, occured after an elderly couple pulled the money out of their home to buy other stuff. Sickening.

 
Comment by jeff saturday
2010-05-19 06:44:32

” but then Judy fell ill and was hospitalized and they missed the first two months of payments.”

I wouldn`t refinance anything. That has to be the leading cause of illness in this country. There should be a warning.

SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Refinancing Your Home Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy.
SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Not Refinancing Your Home Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health.

Comment by DinOR
2010-05-19 08:17:55

jeff saturday,

Yes, as we discussed the other day, having multiple people walking about with umberellas ’causes’ it to rain!

All we can surmise is that lender’s ‘models’ were willing to overlook borrower’s ages and worked off the assumption that if “health problems” arose ( they’d simply repo and sell at a profit! ) How bad could it get?

 
 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb-thrower
2010-05-19 06:59:38

“From 1.8 million housing starts in 2006, the industry was cut to less than a third of its former self with a low of 553,000 starts last year, the National Association of Home Builders says. Sales of new single-family homes plunged 65 percent, from 1 million to 372,000.”

Does that imply there were 553,000 - 372,000 = 181,000 new homes added to the vacant home inventory glut last year, or am I oversimplifying?

Comment by michael
2010-05-19 07:05:52

i think it means that “now is the best time to buy real estate!”

Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb-thrower
2010-05-19 07:16:55

You are right! Anywhere in the world, too!!

 
 
Comment by CincyDad
2010-05-19 09:36:34

I believe the 553,000 number (and the 1.8MM number) refers to all houseing units: SFR + appartment units + duplexes, etc.

(not sure if it includes prisons - lol)

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-05-19 11:09:54

Prisons are housing, too. And they provide stimulus in the form of construction jobs and prison guard jobs, not to mention creating the illusion of safety as long as the prisoners are locked up (of course, eventually the John Albert Gardner III’s of the world reenter society).

 
 
 
Comment by Ben Jones
2010-05-19 08:17:13

‘Because the buildings were rife with defects and building code violations, in 2005 the city revoked each building’s temporary certificate of occupancy–the document that entitles owners to legally occupy, refinance or sell their property. Events left buyers like Monestine owning properties that have no legal right to exist. With no certificate of occupancy, the residents have been forced to keep up on mortgage payments on properties they cannot legally sell or refinance. They worry that their money is going into a black hole.’

‘The residents themselves are the sort of newcomers associated during the real estate boom with gentrification in once-marginal neighborhoods around the city. From 2000 through 2008, the city added 170,000 new living units…many of them in ‘areas of the city that hadn’t seen large-scale building for some time.’

Does anyone remember how great this ‘gentrification’ movement was a few years back? (More urban pioneers). So you pay hundreds of thousands of $ for some old broken down building with no real ownership rights. What can go wrong?

Comment by Jim A.
2010-05-19 09:36:41

Well admittedly, buying a fixer-upper in a gentrifing neighborhood is and doing the rehab yourself is probably one of the few times that “flipping” can turn a reasonable profit in normal times. Of course it is and always has been a risky proposition. If the neighborhood doesn’t end up improving around you, you’ve now got a really expensive crapshack. And it’s hard work doing a real rehab of a borderline unliveable space, not just replacing a perfectly funcitonal kitchen with stainless steel and granite. Sometimes neighborhoods DO improve, just as they sometimes go to heck. But the future is hard to predict, and easy to get wrong.

 
Comment by WT Economist
2010-05-19 10:30:32

They bought into a new building in a marginal neighborhood that was built illegally. In contrast, those who bought existing high quality buildings and fixed them up did very well in Brooklyn over the long term, provided they did not buy at one of the bubble peaks.

What is evidence of a bubble is the fact that someone built a new building in Bedford Stuyvesant to begin with. In other neighborhoods in other times, new construction arrived a decade after all the existing housing was fixed up and the neighborhood was stable.

 
 
Comment by SDGreg
2010-05-19 09:24:02

““A Treasury spokesman told me the Administration is very concerned about moral hazard–rewarding people for taking out loans they never should have taken. But clearly the most hazardous moral around is continuing to cater to the banks’ interests. It doesn’t matter whether someone is losing their home because of a bad subprime mortgage, a lost job, or because they owe more on the mortgage than the home is now worth. Every foreclosure decreases the property value of a neighbor’s home. Every dollar lost in property value–and over $7 trillion in wealth has now been lost by American households–reduces local and state revenues.

The last part of this paragraph gets to the crux of one of the main reasons for propping up housing prices. But in the end, the prices will decline more as will the associated state and local tax revenues. Instead of states and local governments using this breathing room to restructure for long-term lower revenues, they’re still mostly lurching from crisis to crisis with band-aid approaches.

An beyond state and local governments still not being prepared for the future, how much collateral damage will be done by all of these interim measures to prop up prices?

Comment by cactus
2010-05-19 09:32:36

“‘They got billions and trillions of money from (taxpayers) and they have no incentive to do deals,’ Raveis said. ‘If you were getting money and had bad assets, you don’t have to get rid of it so fast.’”

Shadow inventory

 
Comment by Jim A.
2010-05-19 09:58:00

IMHO this is yet another example of people acting like the busting bubble is a temporary glitch and that soon the appreciation fairy will be making her rounds, and price will be returning to bubble heights. Because the idea that price declines are not nearly over and that it will be AT LEAST a decade before prices return to bubble heights is just too terrible to wrap their brains around. And the idea that price declines might even be a GOOD thing, seeing as how that’s the best answer to the “affordable housing problem,” is REALLY crazy talk.

Comment by SMF
2010-05-19 10:47:17

Has the NASDAQ returned to its bubble height? Do people buy into Yahoo in the belief that it will return to its high?

In many other areas, bubble pricing never returned, unless it was under another bubble. 90s bubble prices in Cali never returned, till they were inflated again by another bubble.

As I understood it, the 1926 Florida bubble prices never returned, even during the last bubble.

Bubble pricing will never return, unless high inflation occurs.

Comment by Jim A.
2010-05-19 11:13:42

I though that Miami had returned to (nominal) 1926 prices sometime in the 80s. At one time I considered changing my handle here to Prinz Valdemar after the ship whose capsizing helped to trigger the bust of the Miami bubble in 1926.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by SMF
2010-05-19 12:22:28

The prices were so inflated that to buy a condo-style property in 1926, you would’ve had to pay the same as you would now have to pay for a luxury home in the guard-gated communities in Miami ($4,500,000) - without adjusting for inflation!

http://www.investopedia.com/features/crashes/crashes4.asp

 
Comment by Chris M
2010-05-19 14:02:36

without adjusting for inflation!

Really? So a Miami condo cost $4.5M in 1926 dollars? Isn’t that like $45M today? I find that hard to believe. I think they meant WITH adjustment for inflation.

 
Comment by Jim A
2010-05-19 16:01:18

Well it’s conceivable that somebody agreed agreed to pay 4.5m in 1926. But I’m guessing that in the event, the money never changed hands. At a guess that would have been some sort of fraud, or simply flipper caught in the end with his pants around his ankle, because being stuck 15mil underwater is little worse than being stuck 1 mil underwater. Gotta keep buying and selling until nobody returns your phone calls.

 
 
 
 
Comment by WT Economist
2010-05-19 10:04:43

“Every dollar lost in property value–and over $7 trillion in wealth has now been lost by American households–reduces local and state revenues.”

Not true. They can always raise the rates to offset a decrease in taxable property value.

The issue is income — how much income do people have to pay taxes? How much do people who live off tax dollars — existing and retired public employees — earn relative to the rest )other than top executives and Wall Streeters)?

The rise and fall in property values only affects taxes the pols don’t have to vote for.

Comment by scdave
2010-05-19 10:39:07

raise the rates to offset a decrease in taxable property value ??

Its already happened…I have a rental…It is vacant so no utilities are being used…It cost $20. to have them changed into my name over the phone…It will cost the new renter $20. to turn it back on into their name…It was costing me $67. per month to leave the utilities on even though nothing was being used…They have “bundled” all the services so you can’t pick and choose such as “just leave the water on”…I canceled all service and will leave it that way until rented…

Comment by VegasBob
2010-05-19 12:05:10

Utilities have a great scam going with their “connection charges” and monthly “customer charges.”

Here in Vegas, half the cost of a summer gas bill is the monthly “customer charge.”

When did Utility Commissions lose sight of the fact that they were supposed to protect the public interest, and not the interest of wealthy utility executives?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Arizona Slim
2010-05-19 12:45:05

Here in Tucson, the water bill also covers your sewer and trash pickup bills. And what a fee-fest! They add up to much more than the actual service.

 
Comment by beachmouse
2010-05-19 12:50:30

When the politicians in charge of naming people to the utility commissions started taking huge campaign contributionss from the utility companies.

Huge slap fight going in in Florida right now on the issue because the state legislature refused to confirm a couple of Charlie Crist’s picks for the Public Services Committee because they were too consumer-friendly and wouldn’t just rubber stamp rate increases.

 
Comment by DinOR
2010-05-19 13:10:09

VegasBob/beachmouse,

Hmm… I’m beginning to see a pattern here..?

Right, and this is what we should be concerned about! Long before there’s a “scarcity” of water or… power or… other basic services, we’ll instead boil over on these slap fights, bleeding us dry.

 
Comment by oxide
2010-05-19 13:41:52

“Whiskey is for drinkin’, water is for fightin’ over.”

Attributed to Mark Twain, but not confirmed. Also may have been Twain quoting someone else.

 
Comment by Chris M
2010-05-19 14:07:38

Our water bill at work usually runs around $40/month. In late ‘08, they added a $300/month “debt service fee”. I felt like letting the taps run 24/7 to get my money’s worth. Luckily, our new mayor dropped the fee this year.

 
Comment by DinOR
2010-05-19 15:02:42

Chris M,

Oh… one of those “Because we CAN Fees”! ( Know them well )

This fabricated lack of resources has just got. to. stop! And even if it ‘were’ truly, truly “The Last of Water” why should the last drop be any more expensive than the first?

oxide,

Not to discredit Twain in the slightest, but it was always my understanding that saying originated in the Antelope Valley, as quoted in The Cadillac Desert, I believe?

 
Comment by scdave
2010-05-19 15:09:29

“Because we CAN Fees” ??

+1 Never heard it put that way but it sounds about right…They will tax you in ways that you cannot avoid and more is coming…

 
Comment by DinOR
2010-05-19 16:17:14

scdave,

I stole that from the Great HARM and I’ve yet to run out of uses for it? Why you can whip that out just about anywhere you go.

The Airport, sporting events ( don’t get me started about concert tickets and all the BWCF’s laden in those sorry b@stards! ) Go ahead, now you try!

Recently I read The Stones charged an avg. of $7 a ticket for a great many years throughout the 70’s and even into the 80’s. It wasn’t until they realized there were scalpers outside the show charging a -hundred bucks!- ( and they were “leaving all this money on the table” ) that the “scalping” moved ‘inside’.

I got Mariners tic’s one time and the BWCF’s actually exceeded the cost of the tickets themselves. Go figure. It’s everywhere and you’re right, it will only get worse.

For those of us nearing retirement, it’s not too early to start thinking about alternatives. We’ll start seeing BWCF’s for seniors that can only afford to dry their laundry off their balcony. Can’t wait.

 
Comment by Arizona Slim
2010-05-19 16:31:33

Here’s the HBB librarian with another book recommendation: Gotcha Capitalism by Bob Sullivan. It’s an entire book devoted to nuisance fees. And how profitable they are.

 
 
 
Comment by edgewaterjohn
2010-05-19 10:48:15

That’s right. Mill rates/levies are increasing, maybe not everywhere, but they are increasing in some major housing markets that are home to large portions of housing stock.

To me this is just plain fascinating because one can’t help but wonder where the tipping point is. Trouble is, most won’t know it until it’s been crossed. More reason to think twice about buying at all in many, many localities.

Comment by WT Economist
2010-05-19 11:16:11

The problem with the bubble is that it allowed taxes to rise relative to income WITHOUT a vote. Now, they have to vote for the increase in the tax burden they already locked in.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Jim A.
2010-05-19 11:39:59

Yep. And everybody(borrowers and local governments) added long term expenses commensurate with their newfound “wealth.”

 
Comment by mikey
2010-05-19 13:24:33

I see the bad moon rising.
I see trouble on the way.
I see earthquakes and lightnin’.
I see bad times today…

:(

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by WT Economist
2010-05-19 09:24:10

“Raveis said in the 1990s, when the nation faced a similar situation, the government and banks handled it better. The bad assets were taken away from the banks by the Resolution Trust Corporation, a government entity that could make decisions much more quickly on what properties would be foreclosed upon and which could be saved. This time around, the banks got money and kept the assets.”

He seems to have forgotten the decade of extending and pretending under Reagan as the problem grew worse and worse, before Bush I decided to bite the bullet and raise taxes to pay for it. Some thanks he got.

RTC II in 2017?

 
Comment by sfbubblebuyer
2010-05-19 09:28:52

Cruelest of all, his client also owes the government millions of dollars in back taxes on the original Brooklyn apartment house sale.

Oh no! Your legal tax dodge fell apart and you LOST THE MONEY TRYING TO DODGE THE TAXES!

Cry me a damn river. But only after every last asset you have has been seized to pay off your taxes you jerk. There’s quite a few d-bags like this in California, too. Why doesn’t the Nightly News lead off with the biggest tax-dodgers complete with pictures and addresses.

Comment by DinOR
2010-05-19 10:26:48

sfbb,

You’ll get no argument from me. Many of them builders and developers whom I have only to assume figured they’d settle up w/ U. Sam at a time and place of their choosing?

All they had to do was live it up bigtime and then declare indigence when the bill arrived. Going forward all builders ( read fraudsters ) should be forced to pay quarterly. That’s rope enough.

Comment by mikey
2010-05-19 13:30:46

lol

“That’s rope enough.”

Spoken like a man that raised boys instead of girls.

;)

Comment by Big V
2010-05-19 15:37:51

DinOR has daughters.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Jim A.
2010-05-19 10:45:27

+1.

 
Comment by scdave
2010-05-19 10:48:10

You both are incorrect…They did not “dodge” anything…They used the legal IRS 1031 vehicle to carry their basis and gain over to a qualifying property…What has “trapped” them now is the value has fallen but the total gain from the previous transaction remains…

Their is “one way” to legally “dodge” the tax depending on any number of circumstances…They must hold onto the property until they DIE and get a stepped up basis in there estate..I am sure many will do just that…

Comment by Jim A.
2010-05-19 11:23:15

Okay, “dodge” is a loaded, imprecise term. I don’t think that we’re saying that they didn’t obey the law. But my understanding is that they MADE the profits from the sale of assets before, deferred those capital gains, and then lost money in the new investment. Do I understand that they’ve still netted out gains from their earlier investment even though they’ve lost money on their later investment? Which means that they still owe capital gains taxes because they defered paying capital gains from the sale of their first property when it was sold by using it as the basis for the eventual sale of the later property. Still no sympathy here.

Comment by DinOR
2010-05-19 11:38:36

Even Pre-Bust the IRS was taking a long hard look at 1031’s. As I re-read the article, actually they mentioned that many 1031 recipients will simply lock in their losses, pay the gains and move on.

I don’t know enough about 1031 Exchanges other than to say, they were originally intended to encompass a broad spectrum of various asset classes but like everything ‘else’ in this world… ( became The REIC’s b!tch )

I’d love see a triumphant return of flea markets and open air bazzars. Take ‘that’ REIC mf’rs.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by X-GSfixr
2010-05-19 11:25:35

“….used the legal IRS 1031 vehicle…….”

Which, I am positive, somebody lobbied their Congressmen for, in an attempt to avoid paying taxes.

It would be nice if government at all level made a decision to just stuck to their core functions, and got out of the business of “promoting” or creating “incentives” thru the tax code.

Comment by scdave
2010-05-19 14:46:12

I am positive, somebody lobbied their Congressmen for, in an attempt to avoid paying taxes ??

Nope……..There are more technical conditions but this will give you the basics of the ruling;

In 1970 the STARKER family sold their timber land in the Pacific Northwest to Weyerhauser Company. When they sold the property they crafted a trust agreement wherein the EXCHANGE PROCEEDS would be held by the buyer, Weyerhauser, in a separate bank account. The terms of the trust provided that Weyerhauser would use the funds to purchase REPLACMENT PROPERTY for the Starker family and for no other purpose. The trust agreement limited the Starker family access to the funds except for the purpose of buying replacement property.

When the IRS saw this, it denied 1031 tax deferral to the Starker family. The IRS argued that 1031 exchange meant the swap of property between two parties. The IRS could see that if property could be sold to one person and bought from another, in a 1031 exchange, then the application of the law would become much more wide spread. Since the job of the IRS is to raise taxes it fought hard against the Starker’s trust arrangement. In a monumental and far reaching decision the tax court ruled in favor of the Starker family and against the IRS. To this day, in a tribute to this family, 1031 exchanges are often still called “Starker Exchanges.”

Of course the IRS was right. As soon as 1031 exchanges could be done as three party exchanges then they were much more practical for the Exchanger. Instead of having to find someone willing to swap property, you could now sell to one and buy from another. The use of section 1031 to defer income taxes has mushroomed.

In 1991 the IRS issued regulation (Reg. Sec. 1.1031). These regulations extend for about 100 pages. They are designed for one purpose: To contend with the loss to the Starker family. They do this in two ways. 1) They establish a trust like procedure for escrowing the sale proceeds and, 2) They create a myriad of rules to limit an Exchangers ability to successfully qualify for tax deferral.

In sanctioning the Starker procedure, the IRS created “Qualified Intermediaries.” The name “Qualified Intermediary” was unknown in the vernacular until the IRS put the two words together. Together they have only one meaning: a person or company escrowing the funds from the sale of relinquished property during an IRC section 1031 exchange. The Qualified Intermediary plays the same role today that Weyerhauser Company played for the Starker family. The QI must hold the money, deny access to the money to the Exchanger, and use the money to buy replacement property, as directed by the Exchanger. A written Exchange Agreement governs the relationship of the QI and the Exchanger.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by sfbubblebuyer
2010-05-19 12:01:36

You’ll notice I called it a “legal” tax dodge. I know it’s legal. They are crying because it didn’t work out the way they wanted. They SOLD the property and got the gains. Then pinky promised they’d pay their taxes as soon as they sold the property they dumped the profits into. Now the profits have evaporated in property value declines and they are crying because they still owe taxes on the original gain.

BOO HOO.

If they sold the house and blew it all at the casino before paying their taxes, would anybody have any sympathy? I doubt it.

If they’d paid their taxes when they sold, would they be having this problem? Nope.

I have no sympathy for these people. By deferring paying their taxes, they were betting they’d be getting a better deal by doing so. They lost. They should pay up and shut up.

Comment by scdave
2010-05-19 15:01:36

Now the profits have evaporated in property value declines and they are crying because they still owe taxes on the original gain ??

No again…

They will only owe taxes “IF” they sell (or give it back to the bank)…The crying is because they are “stuck”…If they sell, any equity that they may have could go to paying taxes on the gain of the “downleg” exchange property that they relinquished “and some”..Meaning, all the “equity” that they may have along with digging into to their pocket for the difference to pay the Capital Gain Tax…

So…There choices are;

#1. Sell the property and come up with out of pocket cash to pay the tax

OR

#2. Keep the property and continue to feed the alligator and hope & pray for better times…

One last thing…If, they are completely underwater and have no equity they not only pay the tax “out of pocket” to the IRS but IF the lender takes it back in a foreclosure they will surely be pursued for a deficiency judgement…I believe ALL commercial loans have personal guarantees to some degree attached to them…

In other words, these guys are F……

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by DinOR
2010-05-19 15:09:23

scdave,

Thank you for bringing some light and historic perspective to the subject. I appreciate that.

I guess where ‘I’ get a little bent about all of this is that the whole thing spiraled ever downward to the level of “Start a Nevada LLC!”

“1031 Exchange ‘Specialist’ ”

I’m aware there are legit applications but for the most part it’s always attracted the sleaziest of the sleaze.

 
Comment by Jim A
2010-05-19 16:08:49

Ditto, thanks for the info. But I STILL don’t have any pity. They CHOSE to defer capital gains by using the price of the earlier propery as a basis for their gains on the later property.

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-05-19 11:07:24

“Tamara Williams lives with her two sons in a home she purchased in 2005 and has made three on-time trial payments of $1,274 this winter. She fell behind on her mortgage when she lost her job in November 2008, and went into foreclosure four months later. She now works doing post-renovation and demolition cleanup for a contractor and also attends school. ‘The Obama administration’s program was supposed to give people like me a lifeline and a chance to save our homes. But if the banks won’t play by the rules, what else are we supposed to do?’ said Williams.”

Creating the appearance of special allocations for special people like Ms. Williams is the point of departure for government-sponsored policy disasters.

 
Comment by WT Economist
2010-05-19 11:23:38

If you don’t understand the “air rights” discussion in Bed Stuy, here is a Brownstoner post with more information.

http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2010/05/yesterday_city.php

“Residents who’d bought their condos at 201 Spencer Street the year before from developer Mendel Brach (he of Finger Building fame shame) found out after closing that the building had been illegally overbuilt by four stories by exploiting a “community facility” provision in the code that allowed developers to build extra square footage for educational and religious purposes; in this case, Brach claimed he was going to house teachers from a nearby yeshiva. Department of Buildings failed to catch Brach’s maneuver at the time, approving the building for occupancy just long enough for the unsuspecting condo buyers to close on their units.”

In other words, the building has too much floor area compared with the size of the lot. One way to legalize it — purchase the right to build additional floor area from adjacent lots, “air rights,” evening out the total.

And who owns the adjacent lots? Brach, the same developer, who is demanding lots of money from condo buyers while not paying a $10.9 million judgement against him by claiming he is broke.

 
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2010-05-19 13:34:52

“They said they didn’t realize what they were getting into, but the salesman who gave them the Countrywide loan made it sound like a smart move.”

Great money-quote on this thread, Ben! I love it.

It amazes me that people can get to such an age and never have figured out that a saleman’s job is to tell you that the deal is a smart one for you; he’s trying to sell the deal… Your job is to figure out whether it makes sense for you to buy it.

I’m left wondering if they also have closets full of all the cr*p door-to-door salesman told them that it would be a smart move to buy.

“They’ve been able to hang those pictures there since 1978 when they bought the home — their first and only.”

Wow, their first 30-year mortgage would be totally paid off a couple of years ago if they had managed it intelligently—by which I mean not extending the term each time you refi. There is always an amount you can prepay to turn a new 30-yr mortgage back into a 25-yr mortgage after you refi 5 years into your previous note. No one seems to think of doing this, but I have always included it in my refi computations.

 
Comment by Va Beyatch in Norfolk
2010-05-19 13:47:32

A friend got laid off from our company after getting laid off from a much more lucrative employer. He fell way behind. Collectors threatening him, he offered the keys, they wouldn’t take it. He works hard, goes to school to retrain, and is on the path to a new lucrative career, while working and paying on his house. Had they kicked him out, they would have lost. He’s going to make it, I think.

 
Comment by gs500
2010-05-19 14:24:09

so how long before the housing market will get better?

Comment by Carl Morris
2010-05-19 14:42:01

Until nobody is trying to figure out exactly when to jump back in and instead just wants to stay as far away as possible.

 
Comment by Big V
2010-05-19 15:42:05

It’s getting better as we speak. Houses are becoming affordable again, woo hoo!

Comment by Jim A
2010-05-19 16:12:33

Yep. It would recover and return to something resembling sanity more quickly if people would just LET it. Even the US government doesn’t have the capactiy to keep or return prices to bubble levels.

 
 
 
Comment by JackO
2010-05-19 14:33:09

Failure to realize that home prices should be around 3-4 times the yearly income of buyers results in the belief that house prices will recover value, even though incomes fall because of recession or depression.
But, belief, by politicans, that the public should own their own homes regardless of their income results in problems.
Each income tax raise, each tax raise on consumer goods, each tax raise on business, drives the home price downwards as the public hits the can’t pay the agreed monthly payments wall,and the homes are sold , or lost to foreclosure.

Solution, none! Wishfull thinking, high!

Perhaps complete ownership of homes by government would be the solution! LOL

Comment by Arizona Slim
2010-05-19 14:50:09

Perhaps complete ownership of homes by government would be the solution! LOL

Wasn’t that tried in the Soviet Union?

 
Comment by Big V
2010-05-19 15:43:17

I think the old standard is 2.5x income.

Comment by robiscrazy
2010-05-19 17:13:36

The multiplier today is calculated using gross income.

Was there ever a time in history when it was applied to net income?

 
 
 
Comment by JackO
2010-05-19 19:31:02

Well, I think they still do! They are supposed to consider P, I , T , Utilites,and maintenance to establish cost of residing in home, and add that to the long, and short, terms loan, and make sure that what was left after those items were considered is sufficient to live on!

But, more honored in the breach, I guess.

 
Comment by Joe Formaggio
2010-05-20 19:31:43

“Here’s the problem with the Obama Administration’s approach to foreclosure prevention: it depends entirely on the banks voluntarily doing the right thing, even when homeowners have held up their end of the bargain to prevent a foreclosure.”

Paying the mortgage is what constitutes holding up one’s end of the bargain to prevent foreclosure.

 
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