July 10, 2010

It’s Kind Of Like Being In A Long-Term Investment

The Wall Street Journal reports on Florida. “The financial clouds hovering over the Monteverde condominium development in Boynton Beach, Fla., were driven away in late spring when an investor bought 118 of the project’s 219 units in a ‘bulk sale.’ But Dan Berwitz, who paid $204,000 for a unit in the Monteverde in 2007, has mixed feelings about the deal. He is pleased that the sale will bring financial stability to his building, but he isn’t happy that the bulk-sale buyer plans to sell the units far below what he paid, in some cases as low as $100,000. ‘But unfortunately, right now, there’s nothing we can do,’ he said.”

The District Chronicles on Florida. “Lynn Thompson quit paying the mortgage on her investment property — not because she couldn’t afford the payments, but because she thinks walking away is better for her long-term financial health. Thompson bought the property here for $175,000 in January 2007. At the time, she planned to rent the house and eventually sell it for a profit. Today, she estimates the house is worth $85,000, maybe less.”

“Unable to find renters to help cover the mortgage, she tried to convince her lender to allow a ’short sale’ - selling below the loan amount, with the lender forgiving the balance. When the lender declined, Thompson decided to walk away. ‘I would have basically no money left every month if I made the payments,’ said Thompson. ‘If I tried to sell the house in, say, 10 years from now, I still would have to come up probably with, say, $75,000.’”

“Mike Booth and his wife bought their first home in 2008, two years after they married, for $205,000 - a bargain since the house was appraised at $240,000. Today, he estimates the house would sell for $165,000, but the 30-year-old engineer is taking the long view on what he and his wife call ‘our little castle.’ ‘We’ve entered into a binding moral contract,’ said Booth, who lives in suburban Orlando. ‘Really we don’t think about it being underwater. It’s kind of like being in a long-term investment, and tracking it daily doesn’t make sense.’”

The Palm Beach Daily News. “‘Property values are down,’ Palm Beach County Property Appraiser Gary R. Nikolits acknowledged in his talk to real estate agents and brokers. The preliminary 2010 ‘taxable-value’ appraisals for properties in Palm Beach’s 28 designated areas showed a drop of 12.7 percent from last year, Nikolits said.”

“The total ‘market value’ of properties in the town — residential, commercial and business equipment — has declined from a high of $18.1 billion in 2008 to $14.1 billion in 2010, one chart presented by Nikolits showed. In contrast, the town’s total market value for 2006 was $15.5 billion.”

The Palm Beach Post. “Two senior judges and six case managers have been added to tackle Palm Beach County’s foreclosure backlog, with salaries paid for by $640,000 from state coffers. The new 15th Judicial Circuit employees, including four clerical assistants, last week began to whittle down the estimated logjam of 52,000 foreclosures in county courts.”

“Peter Blanc, chief judge of the 15th circuit, said it is important to clear the foreclosure cases so that vacant and dilapidated homes can go back on the market, presumably increasing neighborhood property values. Blanc estimated the number of foreclosure summary judgments heard in the county each week will increase initially from 1,000 to 2,000. Palm Beach County had just 3,049 foreclosures in 2005. That shot up to 30,227 last year, records show.”

“Homeowner advocates fear the courts may be in too much of a rush to clear the cases, possibly overlooking details such as proof that the lender holds the mortgage note. ‘It seems like the goal of the judicial system is to process these cases as fast as possible,’ said Lisa Epstein, a West Palm Beach homeowner who is fighting a foreclosure. ‘Doing a rush job at this point is benefiting one party and one party only, and that’s the foreclosure entities.’”

“Beginning Monday, Palm Beach County homeowners facing foreclosure will be guaranteed a chance to negotiate a different ending with their lenders as the courts try to reduce a foreclosure overload. All foreclosures filed on or after Monday are subject to a new state Supreme Court order requiring mediation on homesteaded properties before a foreclosure hearing is held.”

“Hobe Sound attorney Trent Steele does foreclosure mediations in the 19th Circuit Court, which includes Martin and St. Lucie counties. The 19th Circuit began requiring mediations this year. ‘I have been very frustrated with the process,’ Steele said. ‘In my opinion, the lenders have no motivation to settle.’”

“Anthony DiMarco, executive vice president for government affairs for the Florida Bankers Association, said bankers worry that the mediation will become a way for borrowers to further stall the process. ‘If we can have meaningful information exchange, then we’re all for it,’ DiMarco said. ‘If it’s just a delaying tactic, it’s not helpful.’”

The News Press. “The backlog of foreclosure cases clogging the Lee County court system dropped below 20,000 in June even as lenders continued a steady flow of filings against family homes. It was the first time the number dipped below 20,000 since 2008. The backlog reached its peak of about 29,000 in late 2008, just before the start of the ‘Rocket Docket’ that lets judges crank out hundreds of foreclosure judgments in a day.”

“But even as the backlog and overall pace of foreclosures has fallen, foreclosures of homesteaded properties - primary residences - have not. Homesteaded primary residences were 55 percent of June’s filings, for example, about what they’ve been running in recent months. Unemployment and continuing harsh economic conditions are to blame for the continuing hemorrhaging of home ownership, said Eddie Felton, executive director of the nonprofit Home Ownership Resource Center in Fort Myers, which helps people in danger of losing their homes.”

“‘We had a class this past Tuesday in which there were 10 people and everyone was there because of the fact they’ve lost employment or their income’s been cut,’ he said. ‘This is what we’re seeing, completely across the board.’”

“For the people coming in now, Felton said, gone are the reckless subprime mortgages that were causing foreclosures two years ago. ‘Now we just have people who want to keep their house,’ he said.”

The Orlando Sentinel. “Jim Kimpel…the fraud investigator for the Lake County Property Appraiser’s Office credits neighborhood busybodies for assisting him in his pursuit of homestead-exemption cheaters, which has added $14.9 million in property value to the county’s tax rolls this year. Their tips and info help the appraiser-turned-gumshoe determine whether a home is rented, abandoned or a snowbird’s winter place — none of which qualifies the property for the tax break.”

“‘Neighbors tell us a lot,’ said Kimpel, who became Lake’s first full-time fraud investigator in January. He’s one of a dozen investigators working for elected property appraisers in Central Florida who have stepped up efforts to ferret out homestead cheats. ‘Nobody who’s paying property taxes likes it when the guy next door is getting a tax break they don’t really deserve.’”

“By law, Florida residents who own a home in the state are entitled to shield up to $50,000 of the property’s value from tax assessment…The property-tax exemption can be doubled to $100,000 for some seniors. To qualify for a homestead exemption, homeowners must prove the property is their permanent residence, a key distinction that begs proof — a drivers license, voter-registration card or vehicle-registration paperwork, for example.”

“Homeowners also cannot claim ‘homestead’ on rentals, second homes and vacant houses. But people try. ‘Oh, do they ever try,’ said Volusia County Property Appraiser Morgan Gilreath. Last year, his two investigators examined more than 700 cases and levied 289 homestead tax liens, which will be worth about $3 million in back taxes, penalties and interest to the county when they are collected.”

From Florida Today. “Merritt Island contractor Sergio Novo was forced to leave the country to make ends meet. The 50-year-old has been taking construction jobs throughout the Caribbean and in Central America. He may head off to Hawaii soon, after bidding on work there. Peaking at 50 to 60 full-time employees, and up to 500 total workers, in the boom years earlier this decade, Novo’s work force has dropped to about five trusted foremen, some of whom also take on the duties of construction worker.”

“‘I’ve got four foreman doing the work of one foreman and three helpers,’ he said. ‘I can’t get any smaller. My thing right now is survival.’”

“By 2007, Novo and other Brevard contractors began to suffer as the credit crisis burst the housing bubble. Work became scarce in Brevard, so Novo began to reach out to contacts he made in the Caribbean during the 1980s and 1990s. The overseas work is welcomed because, with very little construction work in Central Florida, desperate contractors are bidding so fiercely that profit margins have vanished. And commercial construction starts in Florida, estimated at less than $1 billion in 2010, will be less than half the average for the previous five years, according to McGraw-Hill Construction.”

“Novo believes he will be forced to rely on working overseas for at least another year. He sees the benefits of the stimulus funding beginning to fade although the U.S. economy has not yet recovered. In Brevard, building permits for May show only slight improvement in rebounding from historic lows. ‘I don’t see it getting better any time soon,’ he said. ‘The profit margins aren’t there. It’s just survival.’”




RSS feed | Trackback URI

73 Comments »

Comment by Arizona Slim
2010-07-10 05:49:13

From the original post:

The Orlando Sentinel. “Jim Kimpel…the fraud investigator for the Lake County Property Appraiser’s Office credits neighborhood busybodies for assisting him in his pursuit of homestead-exemption cheaters, which has added $14.9 million in property value to the county’s tax rolls this year. Their tips and info help the appraiser-turned-gumshoe determine whether a home is rented, abandoned or a snowbird’s winter place — none of which qualifies the property for the tax break.”

Here in Tucson, there are neighborhood busybodies doing the same thing. And what has us so busy? Mis-classification of properties on the tax rolls, that’s what.

Locally, there are quite a few houses listed as Residential Owner Occupied, but guess what? They’re rentals! Property tax rate on rentals is 14% of assessed value, Residential Owner Occupied tax rate is 10%. Over time, that missing 4% puts quite a hole in the county budget.

I’ve reported a few of these houses to the County Assessor office, only to learn that they’re a bit too laid back about doing anything to correct the situation. However, the County Supervisor’s office is more than happy to jump on it.

Oh, I might add that a couple of nearby busybodies were responsible for having challenge letters issued for my entire street. This is a letter than comes from the County Assessor’s office and it’s up to you to respond within 15 days with proof that your property is indeed owner-occupied. I responded within two days, and, yes, my property remains classified as owner-occupied.

Comment by goirishgohoosiers
2010-07-10 09:08:27

Every property owner in St. Joseph County (IN) received a form earlier this year that required the owner to swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that a homestead exempted parcel was actually used as the principal residence. If you lie about your use and the county proves it, not only do you lose the exemption but you can also be prosecuted for a felony.

Comment by rusty
2010-07-10 13:19:15

Pretty sure our landlord was getting the 50k homestead exemption on our rental that they moved away from 2 years ago. Bet our inlaws are doing the same thing on their two condos as well.

Comment by Reuven
2010-07-10 15:16:05

…too bad you can’t turn your in-laws in for a bounty!

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Mitchell
2010-07-13 08:28:26

HAHA… that’s hilarious! - That is pretty crazy though, everyone in that county had to fill out the form - I’m sure that form and all the people who were a part of investigating wasn’t cheap - great use of our tax dollars! NOT!

 
 
 
 
Comment by BottomFisher
2010-07-10 18:56:24

To make it a little more ‘heavenly’ we could call it ‘Rat on thy Neighbor’ campaign.

 
 
Comment by 2banana
2010-07-10 07:35:58

“Homeowners also cannot claim ‘homestead’ on rentals, second homes and vacant houses. But people try. ‘Oh, do they ever try,’ said Volusia County Property Appraiser Morgan Gilreath. Last year, his two investigators examined more than 700 cases and levied 289 homestead tax liens, which will be worth about $3 million in back taxes, penalties and interest to the county when they are collected.”

So many good questions:

1. Do neighbors that turn in cheats get a commissions?
2. How many of the new and updated homestead tax liens result in a new foreclosure?
3. I could have a drivers license, voter-registration card or vehicle-registration paperwork linked to the house and still make it a rental, second homes or a vacant houses. Where is the line? Why not give everyone the same tax break instead of pushing off taxes on “out of towners? Well, I guess they can’t vote.

Comment by Natalie
2010-07-10 08:04:32

I think it would be awesome to have a law that provides that anyone that reports someone fraudulently reporting a house as their primary residence gets 50% of recovery of any amounts collected as a result of such information.

Comment by Arizona Slim
2010-07-10 08:32:51

Good idea, Natalie. Here in Pima County, we have a phone number called 88-CRIME. It’s the anonymous crimestoppers tip line, and it’s covered 24/7 by live human beings. You can sign up to receive a reward if your tip leads to a successful prosecution.

I think this model would work well for tracking down property tax fraudsters. Doesn’t have to have live humans on the other end of the phone, it just needs to exist.

Oh, and speaking of fraud, we HBB-ers have been waving this red flag for years. It seems that the word is spreading beyond our neck of the blogging woods.

 
 
Comment by Diogenes (Tampa, Florida)
2010-07-10 09:11:53

Why not give everyone the same tax break instead of pushing off taxes on “out of towners?

Answer: because these slimy speculators drive up prices on real estate, all real estate, including our residences. WE live here. Real estate should not be used as a speculative commodity when it concerns housing. IF you are using real estate as an “investment tool”, then it should be treated as such.
The tax break only concerns the house that is your PRIMARY residence.
If I go out and buy up some “rental units”, then i pay the “rental tax”.
That is fair in my book.
Unfortunately, the sleazy “speculators” from out-of-state, want to cheat on their tax-bill by FRAUD, i.e., claiming that they are entitled to an exemption to which they are not, thereby not paying their taxes.

Comment by DennisN
2010-07-10 11:32:23

The purpose often given to push home ownership is that it “strengthens communities”. Hence owner-occupied properties help strengthen communities, whereas absentee landlords don’t. The extra tax on absentee landlords is justified in this point of view.

The homeowner’s exemption in Idaho is huge. You get to take around $100K (varies by year) off the assessed value of the home prior to calculationg the property tax. Since houses here are typically in the $150K-$250K range, this is a fabulous property tax exemption. I’m only paying about $1,200 a year on a house that’s maybe worth $215K.

Comment by aNYCdj
2010-07-10 14:14:05

Well Golly gee Willikers…that EXACTLY what rent control advocates claim.

amazing…..we hate rent control, but its ok for “homeownazz”

—————————————–
The purpose often given to push home ownership is that it “strengthens communities”.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Jim A
2010-07-10 19:01:06

umm… because non residents can’t vote. A simple side effect of democracy.

 
 
Comment by Happy2bHeard
2010-07-11 18:26:22

I wonder what percentage is penalties and interest, how much will be collected, how long it will take to collect, how much it will cost to collect. Will there be an amnesty at some point? Will some of the leins eventually be settled for less than owed?

 
 
Comment by 2banana
2010-07-10 07:42:06

Today, he estimates the house would sell for $165,000, but the 30-year-old engineer is taking the long view on what he and his wife call ‘our little castle.’ ‘We’ve entered into a binding moral contract,’ said Booth, who lives in suburban Orlando.

A mortgage is not a binding moral contract. It is a good ithing f you can keep your end of it and pay it but if you can’t, there is nothing binding and moral about giving your house back to the bank. THAT IS THE CONTRACT.

Comment by Natalie
2010-07-10 07:48:06

I advise you to speak to a real estate attorney first. Limited recourse laws only apply to some States and some mortgages/deeds of trust. If you walk away without confirming your particular State’s law, you may find may jumping from frying pan and into the fire.

Comment by Ol'Bubba
2010-07-10 07:58:02

So true.

If you are in a state with recourse mortgages, walking away puts your non-real estate wealth at risk.

I’m no lawyer, but It’s really, really hard to file for bankruptcy when your assets exceed your liabilities.

 
 
Comment by yogurt
2010-07-10 08:53:37

“THAT IS THE CONTRACT”

Not in Florida. Mortgages are full recourse in that state. As in everything you own.

Comment by HARM
2010-07-12 17:24:06

If FL is full recourse, then why are so many Floridians turning the keys into the bank?

 
 
Comment by Diogenes (Tampa, Florida)
2010-07-10 09:24:05

Sorry banana,
You are just wrong. And everyone on this site who takes that position is wrong. The mortgage is a CONTRACT to pay the amount borrowed.
Period. The HOUSE is collateral under the deal. It is not the ONLY recourse of the lender. Particularly here in Florida.
The “bank” doesn’t own the house, and they didn’t buy the house. The “bank” lent the owner the money. They didn’t have the house in the first place and did not sell the house to the owner. They simply provided a LOAN. The buyer can’t “give the house back”.

The lender is entitled to every penny that they LOANED out to the borrower, by using whatever means they can to recover the loan.
As a recourse State, that means the if the borrower defaults, then the lender can “FORECLOSE”, that means they can have the COURT take the collateral as potential payment for the LOAN. They then sell the property for whatever the market will bear. IF the value exceeds the LOAN, then the buyer gets a refund of the difference.
However, and here’s the big however, if the SALE doesn’t produce sufficient proceeds to settle the DEBT, then the lender is entitled to have the COURT enter a “deficiency judgment” against the borrower for the unpaid balance of the loan due. Period.
That is how the law works here.
Often times the banks don’t pursue the borrower because in many cases they are not financial capable of covering the debts, especially if the debt is from a “homeowner”.
But, and here’s the big but, if the “borrower” has sufficient funds to cover the DEBT, then the lender can go after the borrowers personal assets.
I favor the law here. IF you bought it. It’s yours. If it’s a bad deal, too bad. It’s not the lender responsibility to pay your debts. Pay your debt and stop coming here to speculate in Real Estate!!

Comment by Barrio Fiesta
2010-07-10 10:27:09

Is that mean the lender can go after retirement funds like IRA and 401K?

Comment by Kim
2010-07-10 12:19:05

Good question. IRAs and 401Ks are protected in bankruptcy. We all know that. However, a lender has something like 20 years to collect on a deficiency judgement. So if ten or fifteen years down the road, the debtor comes of age and starts to pull money from the IRA/401K to pay for living expenses… does that money leave the protection of the IRA/401K?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by derek
2010-07-10 20:23:02

The 401k is protected, the IRA is not.

 
Comment by aNYCdj
2010-07-11 00:45:23

IRA’s are protected because its not considered cash or a liquid asset. You have to pay penalty for withdrawal.

 
 
Comment by pismoclam
2010-07-10 14:27:22

Geo Miller, Dem of Ca, has held hearings to plan to take over everyones IRAs and 401ks. That’s Obamas ace in the hold. Confiscate ALL the savers wealth. They don’t usually vote Dem anyway.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by HARM
2010-07-12 17:27:46

Most working class Americans don’t have any “savings”, retirement or otherwise. They have debt obligations they can never repay. The only people left to tax are the rich and super-rich, who have something like 95% of the financial wealth. And they’re the ones controlling the government, so I seriously doubt this will ever happen.

 
 
 
Comment by Jerry
2010-07-10 11:29:46

Then tell the banks to ” not speculate” as they did with no down loans, easy qualifing with little or no credit checks, teaser 1% start up loans to make it easy for home buyers to qualify for the loan that switched, adjusted to much higher rates in the next few years for the remaining term of the loans[suckers loans], no doc’s loan, no income verification, proof of income needed to pay loan, re-set adjustables loans at much higher rates, etc. These are just a few gimmicks that bankers used “to speculate ” in the real estate market as prices always go up. You can’t have it both ways but the same bankers who hustled loans with their easy gimmicks are now “crying the blues” as it was all the home buyers fault. Now the shamless bankers see no wrongs and side with their Wall St. boys as they want there pound of flesh. There are many books coming out now about the banks/Wall St. that are showing that perhaps they are not the innocuous partners they claim to be.

Comment by Reuven
2010-07-10 15:19:59

The buck has to stop somewhere, and it should be with the person who signed his name on the dotted line. In many instances, the banks were forced to offer loans to people of modest means….

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by JackRussell
2010-07-10 17:22:15

Forced? Exactly how were they forced?

The banks made dodgy loans for two reasons. One is that they would be selling them and thus become someone elses problem. Secondly, if the bank did end up foreclosing, they assumed that the property would have appreciated in value, and they could sell it at a profit.

 
Comment by Jim A
2010-07-10 19:04:08

These bad loans have idiots on both sides of the deal.

 
Comment by HARM
2010-07-12 17:33:40

“In many instances, the banks were forced to offer loans to people of modest means….”

Typical right-wing canard. The problem wasn’t banks being forced to dole out loans to minorities, it was a reckless Fed and nearly 100% taxpayer guarantee of mortgages securitized then sold off by the GSEs.

There were some noteable cases of rampant fraud by individual flippers (anyone recall Casey Serin and Crisp & Cole?). Nonetheless, it’s not even a close call on the overall responsibility. The banks had all the information, power and leverage, and they used it to push as many craptastic loans as possible for maximum profit. What did the average house buyer have?

 
 
 
Comment by rusty
2010-07-10 13:33:29

what happens if you live in another state now, the long arm of florida can still reach out and get you?

Comment by Diogenes (Tampa, Florida)
2010-07-10 14:04:26

I believe that is the purpose of the Interstate Commerce Clause under which we Constitutionally operate. I don’t think you can just run across the border to shaft your creditors.
If you could, I suspect there would not be any credit card loans and housing loans would be 40% down payment. May not be a bad idea, after all.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by rusty
2010-07-10 15:15:01

That is good news, then I have some leverage with my LL in CT who are trying to do this very thing (walk away because our rent doesn’t cover their bill).

It does make sense that just moving away doesn’t protect you from where you purchased your home.

 
 
Comment by Jim A
2010-07-10 19:07:53

Under the constitution, states are obligated to respect the judgements of other states. Now this might mean that the lender has to go through two courts, one in the juristiction where the mortgage was executed, and the other in the state where the other assets that it wants to seize are.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by DennisN
2010-07-10 11:50:48

My real property teacher in law school would always prance around the classroom waving 2 pieces of paper, labeled “NOTE” and “TRUST DEED”. She really wanted to hammer into us the fact that what’s informally called a mortgage has two legal documents. The NOTE is a promissary note (IOU) to repay a debt with interest. The TRUST DEED is a recordable security interest which permits the lender to take the house if the terms of the note are not satisfied. (In some states the trust deed may be a true “mortgage” in which case the lender ALREADY owns the house, and you don’t really own it until the note is paid off.)

ALL notes are intrinsically “recourse”. The borrower owes the money. However, in many states the code of civil procedure prohibits suing to collect any deficiency after the trust deed is foreclosed upon under certain circumstances. Laymen often refer to this situation using the shorthand expression “non-recourse mortgage”. But the law is a trap for those who rely on legal shorthand.

Those “certain circumstances” vary by state. In CA the suing to collect the deficiency only happens for “non-judicial” foreclosures, not judicial foreclosure. The lender has a choice: go for the short-form foreclosure and waive the right to sue, or go for the more expensive and time-consuming judicial foreclosure and retain the right to sue for the deficiency.

I’ve made a few simplifying assumptions making this short summary but it’s the best I could do without writing a book.

Comment by Diogenes (Tampa, Florida)
2010-07-10 14:13:40

In Florida we don’t have Trust Deeds. We have Promissory Notes and Mortgages. The Lender does not take title to the property by trust deed, which reverts to the borrower upon payment of the loan.
That is done with Car loans, whereby the bank holds the title until you pay it off.
In this State, the Borrower takes Title, by Warranty Deed from the Seller. The bank gets the Mortgage and Note.
The Borrower swears that he will pay the loan back under the note, and he gives the bank the right to seek title under the mortgage by way of a Foreclosure.
It varies from State to State, so you need to check individual laws.
However, we have very generous HOMESTEAD LAWS, which allow any crook who embezzles money from his company to buy a house here, no matter the price or size of the property and keep the house without any claims from creditors. The only claims to a Homestead are Mortgages and Taxes. That’s why some many executive robber barons buy property here. If you worked for a company that had its pension fund robbed and the company ruined in a hostile take-over, chances are they ended up living in a Mansion in Palm Beach, with all their personal assets in their wife’s name.

 
 
 
Comment by Natalie
2010-07-10 07:52:32

“Mike Booth and his wife bought their first home in 2008, two years after they married, for $205,000 - a bargain since the house was appraised at $240,000. . .. Today, he estimates the house would sell for $165,000.”

I can only assume the references to “bargain” and reliance on an “appraisal” were meant as a sarcastic jab. Appraisals can say whatever you want them to say and are not based on underlying fundamentals and historical ratios. They just pull up recent sales for the same size in the same general area and pick the low ones or the high ones depending on their desired target number.

Comment by Natalie
2010-07-10 08:02:14

I alway thought it would be interesting if appraisals had to contain a sub-area risk section which was pegged to avg sales price v. income in the geographical area, a price v. rental ratio for the geographical area, and a chart of housing appreciation going back 50 years for the geographical area. This should be a standardized section based on objective numbers and the same for the agreed upon area. In this manner, the geographical area could get a score of 1-10 for bubble risk which lenders and buyers can take into account. I would also encourage additional laws such as any home in a 5 or greater bubble risk area should not be covered by any applicable non-recourse laws. In other words, lender and buyer beware.

 
Comment by awaiting wipeout
2010-07-10 08:39:44

Natalie-
Since we are in the market for our “toe tag” home, and are keeping all options open, I took a class on Short Sales this week. You’re spot on. When the NAR got their way, and now BPO (Broker’s Price Opinions) are done by UHS, and not by real Appraisers, there is now no real objectivity. It’s the wild west out there in my opinion. It’s always been somewhat subjective in the past, but now it’s pretty much worthless, imho.

I now have a copy of the documents the seller sends off to the bank. Interesting stuff, to say the least. 33.3% of Short Sales don’t close, btw.

Comment by awaiting wipeout
2010-07-10 08:52:45

“documents the seller sends off to the bank…”
I mis-communicated, the Seller’s Agent sends off to the bank.

 
Comment by exeter
2010-07-10 12:23:09

BULLSEYE AwaitingWipeout!

Guess who is “appraising” FNM shacks? That’s right folks….. REALTURDS! FNM will accept the average of three BPO’s provided by none other than the liars on the front line who got us into this debacle. FNM has a huge and growing inventory and all of it is still grossly inflated and yes some are selling. What’s worse is the listing agent can and does add a premium to the BPO average and that broker premium is substantial (in the tens of thousands). This fact is NOT disclosed to potential buyers but it’s there.

 
Comment by Kim
2010-07-10 12:24:29

“33.3% of Short Sales don’t close, btw”

That number seems low.

Comment by awaiting wipeout
2010-07-10 12:57:00

Kim-
Yeah, that number surprised me too. It could also be that I was feed BS, but it’s an average of different regions, so maybe.

exeter
Good post, and I could not agree more. (I worked for a REIT, and I’m licensed in Ca.) One thing I did learn in the class of interest, is how the bank’s are evaluating offers, comps, and the overall market conditions.
All in all, worth my time.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by megamike
Comment by palmetto
2010-07-10 12:52:16

Good catch, mike. Yes, that story has been all over the news down here. One of the things pointed out is that the structural problems got back to when the condo was built, which would be 1974. My last residence was a 1970s era condo and the walls were pretty thin. The 1970s was not the best era for condo building in Florida. Makes me wonder if subsequent production is better or worse. Probably better, post 1980s, since the codes got a lot more stringent.

 
 
Comment by swguy
2010-07-10 08:12:20

Don’t get sucked into buying a home based on the low interest rates. The price of the home should be the deciding factor, then of course go for the lowest rate you qualify for.
Agents are pushing people to buy based on the very low rates and hope you take your eye off the ball. Houses basically are still very overpriced be careful and prudent,the housing market is not done correcting by a longshot.

Comment by Natalie
2010-07-10 08:20:47

Regardless of expectations, most ppl move within 5 years. Thus, you could be setting a trap for yourself if interest rates rise. Interest rates are now down to 4.5%. That means that once they go back to 9%, someone with 10% down or less roughly will have to pay almost twice as much per month for the home even if you sell it for exactly what you paid for it (which would in fact be at a loss after transaction and carrying costs are taken into account). So much for your buyer pool.

Comment by awaiting wipeout
2010-07-10 09:09:38

Natalie-
My gut/ears tells me the pattern of moving every 5-7 yrs, in our culture is changing. In my opinion, people are going to take a much longer view on living in their home.

Comment by jjb4430
2010-07-10 10:02:40

I’d take the opposing view. My father has worked at the same place for essentially his entire professional career he turned 64 last month. I am 30, I have had three jobs since graduating college in three different states. I’m guessing being nimble and able to relocate is important given the economic realities people face nowadays. Time will tell I guess. Needless to say, I rent.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by awaiting wipeout
2010-07-10 10:13:23

jjb4430
I more than understand your point of view and experiences. There are so many variables, but as a Baby Boomer, my circle of friends and co-workers are staying put, understanding the trade off might be under-employment. As a 30 year old (lucky you) you have more options, imho.

My husband thought he’d retire from Engineering Management, but instead, her career retired him (outsourcing and insourcing sucks).

 
Comment by jjb4430
2010-07-10 11:25:06

I agree with you on a local level. I don’t think people are going to be “trading up” in the same community every few years as was commonplace during the boom. Economic realities are such that on a national level people will have to be mobile to advance their careers or even just stay employed.

 
Comment by DennisN
2010-07-10 12:26:21

I think you may be in agreement more than you realize.

People who see their way to a stable career may choose to buy a home and stay put. People who see a need for moving around to where the jobs are will forego buying a house and rent instead. What WON’T happen is people buying a house expecting to move every few years, because this will no longer make financial sense.

 
 
Comment by Joe
2010-07-10 10:13:54

I agree, I think that with the way the economy is going, people are going to have to move around a lot to stay employed.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by aNYCdj
2010-07-10 14:23:49

Joe yes and no..

Jobs where you Have to have bodies present you will have to move…

Jobs you can do from home or remotely with a fast internet connection and a webcam…well you can be a Carolina beach bum…and live well even if the main office is in New York City

 
Comment by Jim A
2010-07-10 19:18:22

aNYCDJ–Jobs you can do from home or remotely with a fast internet connection and a webcam…well you can be a Carolina beach bum…and live well even if the main office is in New York City
–Or, many of them can be ousourced to Mumbai. Even if it’s half as efficient, being able to pay one fifth as much is a strong incentive.

 
Comment by aNYCdj
2010-07-11 00:51:37

True…

I’m still having a hard time understanding why our “leadership” wants a dumbed down populace.

What is their end game?

 
Comment by Happy2bHeard
2010-07-11 22:01:26

You may be giving our leadership too much credit. I’m not sure they have an end game.

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by yogurt
2010-07-10 09:00:07

“he isn’t happy that the bulk-sale buyer plans to sell the units far below what he paid, in some cases as low as $100,000.”

Well in that case Dan, why don’t your and the other owners offer to buy the units for the same price you paid for your own? If you think the price you paid is what they’re really worth that wouldn’t be problem would it?

 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb-thrower
2010-07-10 09:11:46

“It’s kind of like being in a long-term investment, and tracking it daily doesn’t make sense.”

Buying stock in Japan when the Nikkei was at 39K, circa 1989, was kind of like entering a long-term investment, too. Unfortunately, after the best week in 7 months, the Nikkei currently sits at a level of 9,585.32, still 75 percent down from its late-1989 peak. Apparently, long-term investments can easily continue losing value for longer than weak-handed investors can stay solvent.

Comment by Diogenes (Tampa, Florida)
2010-07-10 09:37:04

Japan’s got nothing over the U.S. but a longer time horizon.
The NASDAQ was at 5000 in 2000. It’s been hovering around 2000 for a long time now. It just can’t recover. 10 years of losses.
Do you see a booming economy and market over the next few years?
I don’t.

Comment by Joe
2010-07-10 10:15:01

The NASDAQ will probably be at 5000 in the year 5000. :-)

 
Comment by Diogenes (Tampa, Florida)
2010-07-10 10:38:05

I wanted to add one more thought to ponder.
The Stock market went into a “bubble” from 1995 to 2000. Those areas are not recoverable in the short-run.
The DOW JONES peaked in a bubble in 1930. It did not recover to that level until about 1955, with the post-war boom. That’s 25 years.
If you “held” in the 1930 bubble at age 60, you were probably dead by the time the market “recovered”.
Then, the DOW went up steadily until about 1965. Solid gains.
From 1965 to 1985, it was essentially FLAT. It began to claim again into the 1995 bubble expansion into 2000.
FED manipulation of the markets has kept the market from properly correcting the over-expansion of the 2000 bubble. It’s only been 10 years since that crash, and the recent “recovery” is foundering.
I think it’s good to look at the trends from a long-term perspective.
20 years of loses in not unusual, but it won’t help sell stocks.
Additionally, all the INDEXES are rigged. Any stock that starts failing to perform gets “delisted”. So the index is not a measure of market performance, it is an index of the best performing stocks.
IF you didn’t get out of the bad ones, but held “For the long-term”, you are probably a much poorer person (but the brokerage house thanks you).

Comment by DennisN
2010-07-10 19:29:41

So the index is not a measure of market performance, it is an index of the best performing stocks.

And that’s why index funds are good. You get the benefit of a managed fund without paying for it. The index itself is “managed”.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb-thrower
2010-07-10 23:41:56

‘The index itself is “managed”.’

By Darwinian management, no less: Stocks which perform poorly tend to shrink over time as a share of the value of an index, so on average, your investment dollar is allocated to stocks with better-than-average performance.

 
 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb-thrower
2010-07-10 23:43:50

“From 1965 to 1985, it was essentially FLAT.”

Nominally flat against a backdrop of high inflation = real losses.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Happy2bHeard
2010-07-11 22:10:59

Bingo. Which I think is why we have a generation of spenders.

ISTM that 401Ks drove the increases from 1985 to 2000. The replacement of defined benefit plans with defined contribution plans sent a lot of people looking for gains that would support their retirement plans. Masses of newbies to the market were given the same advice - invest in the market when your risk tolerance is high and move out of the market when your risk tolerance decreases.

Demographics.

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by Diogenes (Tampa, Florida)
2010-07-10 09:33:54

“Lynn Thompson quit paying the mortgage on her investment property — not because she couldn’t afford the payments, but because she thinks walking away is better for her long-term financial health.”

I hope she has a good lawyer. My prior comment on recourse lending here in Florida didn’t post, but if she can afford the payments, then she is required to make the payments, unless she works out another deal with the lender.
I hope the lender pursues her for the past payments, interest, late fees, and court costs. If you want to be an “investor”, then you should pay for the “investment”.

Comment by Sagesse
2010-07-10 17:46:29

There must be thousands like her, or tens of thousands rather. And it all seems to be hush hush until now. I’d expect to see so many “second” “homes” flooding the ads with “take me” pleas, but it’s not happening. Maybe hungry agents devour these themselves, so until all of them get a big stomach ache…

 
 
Comment by Reuven
2010-07-10 15:10:41

“‘I would have basically no money left every month if I made the payments,’ said Thompson.”

What’s interesting here is that she’s admitting that she didn’t enter into this arrangement “in good faith.” Nevermind what she thinks she can get for this property today–she just admitted that she had no way of paying the payments she had agreed to. And this would be true no matter what the current value of the property would be.

 
Comment by Eddie
2010-07-11 06:27:52

I’m not defending the people who are walking away. But isn’t that what the contract allows for? I buy a house. I get a loan. I put up my house as collateral for the loan. If I stop paying the lender takes the house. It’s neatly spelled out in the contract.

I don’t see where the borrower is breaking the contract by walking away. If the borrower walked away and burned the house down, then yes, by all means sue the borrower. But just walking away and giving the house back to the lender seems to me is fully within the terms of the contract.

If the lender was foolish enough to lend money against the collateral that is now worth less than the loan, well, too bad. Next time be more diligent with your lending standards. But don’t clog up the courts with lawsuits because you were handing out $500K loans to anyone with a pulse and it turned out not to be such a hot business move.

Comment by HARM
2010-07-12 17:39:49

No-no-no. Only the banks can be ruthless in breaking contracts they’ve entered and demanding the taxpayer bail them out “or else”. The average suck– er, consumer, has to HONOR HIS FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS, no matter what the cost to his family, health and long-term well being. To do anything else would be IMMORAL.

 
Comment by john
2010-07-14 14:08:03

it depends on the state law, many states allow the lender to go after those who walk and stick the lender with the loss. not sure if the IRS will count the loss to the bank as income to the deadbeat. non recourse loan states like arizona and california don’t allow them to go after the borrowers. except, when home equity was used to buy goodies and was not spent toward the house.

 
 
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