"4 weeks and then all hell breaks loose"

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
[quote author="tmare" date=1251977889]Nothing to add, only that this thread has proven to be exceptionally interesting. This appears to be the thread to watch around here lately. Thanks to all of the newbies, agree or not, a few of you have brought back the controversy and I like that. Carry on, I'm just watching and enjoying it.</blockquote>


I have to agree. This thread plus today's blog post brought me back to the early IHB days.
 
[quote author="Mcdonna1980" date=1251978201][quote author="tmare" date=1251977889]Nothing to add, only that this thread has proven to be exceptionally interesting. This appears to be the thread to watch around here lately. Thanks to all of the newbies, agree or not, a few of you have brought back the controversy and I like that. Carry on, I'm just watching and enjoying it.</blockquote>


I have to agree. This thread plus today's blog post brought me back to the early IHB days.</blockquote>




Thanks for getting me to go back to the blog. The house that became empty yesterday in my neighborhood brings it all home.
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1251973356]<blockquote>TRrenter, I didn't say it made sense.</blockquote>


Not only does it not make sense it is impossible.



Gross income is before they take out one deduction. DTI is based on gross income not net income.



You are wrong, plain and simple. No way can they make a loan at 100% DTI</blockquote>


I have heard this directly from GMAC and Chase. Call them if you don't believe it.
 
[quote author="bltserv" date=1251976379][quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1251972927]Eva, sorry, I had to step out. Thank you. Love the avatar, I'm old enough to remember them firsthand.



TRrenter, I didn't say it made sense.



Caycifish, this stuff is optional if it makes you feel better. I happen to think there could be some cases where assistance like this may be deserved - along with the cases where it's not (but I know that is an unpopular opinion).



No such, you're a hopeless optimist (pessimist?). There will be some middle result that everyone will be half happy/angry with, including you. You are going head-to-head with motivated owners and more-motivated banks. Neither will give up easily.



There are many variables in play. Anyone claiming certainty of outcome is foolish.</blockquote>


Its simple mathematics. Your dealing with a depreciating asset. Your business model is fatally flawed. It needs to predict this constant depreciation stopping.

From what I see this may take decades.



I would like to sell you some parachutes. They will open when you leave the plane. But after that. Not my problem.



This whole loan modification business needs to be bonded. You need to put a couple hundred grand in the game so you have some skin in the process.



Otherwise I look at all you loan mod guys like I look at the guys selling winners at the track. Vultures picking at the foolish and injured.</blockquote>


What the?????? I am not a loan mod guy. Geesh.
 
[quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1251981289][quote author="trrenter" date=1251973356]<blockquote>TRrenter, I didn't say it made sense.</blockquote>


Not only does it not make sense it is impossible.



Gross income is before they take out one deduction. DTI is based on gross income not net income.



You are wrong, plain and simple. No way can they make a loan at 100% DTI</blockquote>


I have heard this directly from GMAC and Chase. Call them if you don't believe it.</blockquote>


Assume for a minute you are correct. The cure rate will be 0%. Think about it.
 
More shadow inventory from <a href="http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/09/accidental-landlords-and-shadow.html">Calculated Risk</a>.
 
[quote author="awgee" date=1251982876]More shadow inventory from <a href="http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/09/accidental-landlords-and-shadow.html">Calculated Risk</a>.</blockquote>


Another category to add to Calculated Risks idea of shadow inventory. I've come to terms with pre-foreclosures, which I still think cannot be grouped together with foreclosures, but does give some good insight into future shadow inventory. But, rental properties as shadow inventory is almost as bad as his category of people waiting to sell.



He evens says it himself, he doesn't know where the rental properties are coming from. Very likely, its investors purchasing low-end homes and renting them out because the demand for rental properties have been increasing. Quite a few complexes around the angel's stadium transitioned from condos to rental apartments sometime ago, does that mean that all of these are shadow inventory as well?



In one way, shape, or form it seems like the majority of housing units could fall into one of Calculated Risks' shadow inventory categories.
 
[quote author="irvine_home_owner" date=1251956649][quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1251956603]I'll go get my monkey.</blockquote>
Make sure he/she only has one arm or you're cheating.</blockquote>


I'm all warm and fuzzy inside.
 
[quote author="RoLar_USC" date=1251984065][quote author="awgee" date=1251982876]More shadow inventory from <a href="http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/09/accidental-landlords-and-shadow.html">Calculated Risk</a>.</blockquote>


Another category to add to Calculated Risks idea of shadow inventory. I've come to terms with pre-foreclosures, which I still think cannot be grouped together with foreclosures, but does give some good insight into future shadow inventory. But, rental properties as shadow inventory is almost as bad as his category of people waiting to sell.



He evens says it himself, he doesn't know where the rental properties are coming from. Very likely, its investors purchasing low-end homes and renting them out because the demand for rental properties have been increasing. Quite a few complexes around the angel's stadium transitioned from condos to rental apartments sometime ago, does that mean that all of these are shadow inventory as well?



In one way, shape, or form it seems like the majority of housing units could fall into one of Calculated Risks' shadow inventory categories.</blockquote>


Robert... Robert... CR even cited his sources: <em>The Census Bureau's Housing Units Completed, by Intent and Design shows 1.1 million units completed as 'built for rent' since Q2 2004. <strong>This means that another 3.2 million or so rental units came mostly from conversions from ownership to rentals.</strong></em>



Come on dude... he is citing verifiable data. And, even if you add the condos that were converted as apartments it really wouldn't add up to much. Even if it were a million units converted, that means there are still 2.2 million units that came from conversions from ownership to rentals.



You keep harping on CR, but when has CR been wrong?



And I know where a lot of those rentals are coming from. I just have no way to cite my sources. Just know there is institutional money out there, and you know what they say about idle hands.
 
[quote author="graphrix" date=1251986770][quote author="RoLar_USC" date=1251984065][quote author="awgee" date=1251982876]More shadow inventory from <a href="http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/09/accidental-landlords-and-shadow.html">Calculated Risk</a>.</blockquote>


Another category to add to Calculated Risks idea of shadow inventory. I've come to terms with pre-foreclosures, which I still think cannot be grouped together with foreclosures, but does give some good insight into future shadow inventory. But, rental properties as shadow inventory is almost as bad as his category of people waiting to sell.



He evens says it himself, he doesn't know where the rental properties are coming from. Very likely, its investors purchasing low-end homes and renting them out because the demand for rental properties have been increasing. Quite a few complexes around the angel's stadium transitioned from condos to rental apartments sometime ago, does that mean that all of these are shadow inventory as well?



In one way, shape, or form it seems like the majority of housing units could fall into one of Calculated Risks' shadow inventory categories.</blockquote>


Robert... Robert... CR even cited his sources: <em>The Census Bureau's Housing Units Completed, by Intent and Design shows 1.1 million units completed as 'built for rent' since Q2 2004. <strong>This means that another 3.2 million or so rental units came mostly from conversions from ownership to rentals.</strong></em>



Come on dude... he is citing verifiable data. And, even if you add the condos that were converted as apartments it really wouldn't add up to much. Even if it were a million units converted, that means there are still 2.2 million units that came from conversions from ownership to rentals.



You keep harping on CR, but when has CR been wrong?



And I know where a lot of those rentals are coming from. I just have no way to cite my sources. Just know there is institutional money out there, and you know what they say about idle hands.</blockquote>


Yes, he cites that 1.1 million housing units were constructed for the sole purpose of renting since q2 2004 and then points out that 3.2 million must have been owned for personal use at one time. But, coupled with the title, "Accidential Landlords," he is trying to conclude that 3.2 million homeowners have been forced to rent out their homes and are just waiting to sell.



Let's look at his primary focus of his article, the header: The Accidental Landlords and Shadow Inventory, the bold text: Since Q2 2004, there have been over 4.3 million units added to the rental inventory; and 3.2 million or so rental units came mostly from conversions from ownership to rentals. All used to draw the attention of the reader and lead them to believe the added rental inventory is all because of "accidental landlords", but oh wait, there's one little excerpt he had to add in. It's a pretty important fact, but it's not bold and it was only quickly stated and then moved on.



"<strong>These could be investors buying REOs for cash flow, condo "reconversions", builders changing the intent of new construction (started as condos but became rentals)</strong>, flippers becoming landlords, or homeowners renting their previous homes instead of selling." And furthermore, in the beginning, even his cited article states "Hard data are scant on how many homeowners are renting out their homes."



So because it's nearly impossible to tell exactly how many of these rentals are accidental landlords, and he failed to find even an estimated percentage, what does he do? He says, lets just throw them all in as more shadow inventory.



Sorry, but this article is all about his assumptions and general facts, which he does cite, but provides no support to his opinion. Like I said, according to him, I think 90% of homes are shadow inventory.
 
[quote author="RoLar_USC" date=1251988215]Yes, he cites that 1.1 million housing units were constructed for the sole purpose of renting since q2 2004 and then points out that 3.2 million must have been owned for personal use at one time. But, coupled with the title, "Accidential Landlords," he is trying to conclude that 3.2 million homeowners have been forced to rent out their homes and are just waiting to sell.



Let's look at his primary focus of his article, the header: The Accidental Landlords and Shadow Inventory, the bold text: Since Q2 2004, there have been over 4.3 million units added to the rental inventory; and 3.2 million or so rental units came mostly from conversions from ownership to rentals. All used to draw the attention of the reader and lead them to believe the added rental inventory is all because of "accidental landlords", but oh wait, there's one little excerpt he had to add in. It's a pretty important fact, but it's not bold and it was only quickly stated and then moved on.



"<strong>These could be investors buying REOs for cash flow, condo "reconversions", builders changing the intent of new construction (started as condos but became rentals)</strong>, flippers becoming landlords, or homeowners renting their previous homes instead of selling." And furthermore, in the beginning, even his cited article states "Hard data are scant on how many homeowners are renting out their homes."



So because it's nearly impossible to tell exactly how many of these rentals are accidental landlords, and he failed to find even an estimated percentage, what does he do? He says, lets just throw them all in as more shadow inventory.



Sorry, but this article is all about his assumptions and general facts, which he does cite, but provides no support to his opinion. Like I said, according to him, I think 90% of homes are shadow inventory.</blockquote>


Did you pose this question on his blog, or just here? He is fairly good about responding to well thought out challenges like yours, so I hope you did post this question on his blog. I haven't read the comments on his blog in over a year now, because they are a huge time suck, but they are some of the best comments out there. I just have better things to do, like comment here about capital ratios and what not.



<strong>EDIT:</strong> Oh... and some of those cash flow investors are only holding out for a few years for when the market comes back, and then they will sell. Shadow inventory? I dunno if I would call it that, but near future inventory it will be. Again, can't cite my sources, just stuff I hear about hanging around the right people here and there.
 
You and I both know graphrix, if I came in here throwing around weak datapoints like that and trying to draw conclusions, I would be getting an ear full.
 
[quote author="graphrix" date=1251988553][quote author="RoLar_USC" date=1251988215]Yes, he cites that 1.1 million housing units were constructed for the sole purpose of renting since q2 2004 and then points out that 3.2 million must have been owned for personal use at one time. But, coupled with the title, "Accidential Landlords," he is trying to conclude that 3.2 million homeowners have been forced to rent out their homes and are just waiting to sell.



Let's look at his primary focus of his article, the header: The Accidental Landlords and Shadow Inventory, the bold text: Since Q2 2004, there have been over 4.3 million units added to the rental inventory; and 3.2 million or so rental units came mostly from conversions from ownership to rentals. All used to draw the attention of the reader and lead them to believe the added rental inventory is all because of "accidental landlords", but oh wait, there's one little excerpt he had to add in. It's a pretty important fact, but it's not bold and it was only quickly stated and then moved on.



"<strong>These could be investors buying REOs for cash flow, condo "reconversions", builders changing the intent of new construction (started as condos but became rentals)</strong>, flippers becoming landlords, or homeowners renting their previous homes instead of selling." And furthermore, in the beginning, even his cited article states "Hard data are scant on how many homeowners are renting out their homes."



So because it's nearly impossible to tell exactly how many of these rentals are accidental landlords, and he failed to find even an estimated percentage, what does he do? He says, lets just throw them all in as more shadow inventory.



Sorry, but this article is all about his assumptions and general facts, which he does cite, but provides no support to his opinion. Like I said, according to him, I think 90% of homes are shadow inventory.</blockquote>


Did you pose this question on his blog, or just here? He is fairly good about responding to well thought out challenges like yours, so I hope you did post this question on his blog. I haven't read the comments on his blog in over a year now, because they are a huge time suck, but they are some of the best comments out there. I just have better things to do, like comment here about capital ratios and what not.</blockquote>


Good point. I will, and I'll tell him graphrix sent me.
 
[quote author="RoLar_USC" date=1251988670][quote author="graphrix" date=1251988553][quote author="RoLar_USC" date=1251988215]Yes, he cites that 1.1 million housing units were constructed for the sole purpose of renting since q2 2004 and then points out that 3.2 million must have been owned for personal use at one time. But, coupled with the title, "Accidential Landlords," he is trying to conclude that 3.2 million homeowners have been forced to rent out their homes and are just waiting to sell.



Let's look at his primary focus of his article, the header: The Accidental Landlords and Shadow Inventory, the bold text: Since Q2 2004, there have been over 4.3 million units added to the rental inventory; and 3.2 million or so rental units came mostly from conversions from ownership to rentals. All used to draw the attention of the reader and lead them to believe the added rental inventory is all because of "accidental landlords", but oh wait, there's one little excerpt he had to add in. It's a pretty important fact, but it's not bold and it was only quickly stated and then moved on.



"<strong>These could be investors buying REOs for cash flow, condo "reconversions", builders changing the intent of new construction (started as condos but became rentals)</strong>, flippers becoming landlords, or homeowners renting their previous homes instead of selling." And furthermore, in the beginning, even his cited article states "Hard data are scant on how many homeowners are renting out their homes."



So because it's nearly impossible to tell exactly how many of these rentals are accidental landlords, and he failed to find even an estimated percentage, what does he do? He says, lets just throw them all in as more shadow inventory.



Sorry, but this article is all about his assumptions and general facts, which he does cite, but provides no support to his opinion. Like I said, according to him, I think 90% of homes are shadow inventory.</blockquote>


Did you pose this question on his blog, or just here? He is fairly good about responding to well thought out challenges like yours, so I hope you did post this question on his blog. I haven't read the comments on his blog in over a year now, because they are a huge time suck, but they are some of the best comments out there. I just have better things to do, like comment here about capital ratios and what not.</blockquote>


Good point. I will, and I'll tell him graphrix sent me.</blockquote>


Make sure you see my edit above.



Anytime you want me to tell Bill I sent you his way, you just let me know.
 
This is like the old days. I love it! Someone tell nirvinerealtor to come back for old time sake.



<a href="http://www.housingwire.com/2009/09/02/lps-sees-foreclosure-inventory-rise-896-from-2008/">LPS Sees Foreclosure Inventory Rise 89.6% from 2008</a>



By DIANA GOLOBAY

September 2, 2009 8:10 AM CST



http://www.housingwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/rolls-to-foreclosure.png



Foreclosure starts increased in July while completed foreclosures eased, funneling more loans into the foreclosure pipeline. Loss mitigation efforts, however, seem to enjoy a greater degree of success.



<strong>Foreclosure inventory rose 4.2% in July from June and is up 89.6% from July 2008</strong>, according to the August mortgage monitor report by Lender Processing Services (LPS: 34.82 0.00%). The total US foreclosure inventory rate sits at 3%.



Foreclosure starts rose 7.1% to their second-highest record. The rate of loans rolling into the final foreclosure stage, however, are narrowing back toward levels seen in mid-2006 and remain below ?07 and ?08 levels as servicers step up loss mitigation efforts, LPS said.



These loss mitigation and foreclosure prevention efforts taken in Q109 and Q209 so far outperform the efforts taken in all of last year. Modifications made in the first two quarters of 2009 experienced lower redefault rates in their initial three months than those modifications made in every quarter of 2008.



In another bit of positive data, new delinquencies dropped in July to their second-lowest level in the last year.



<strong>The rate of total delinquencies remained unchanged from June at 8.6% but hold 40% above year-ago levels. The national rate for all non-current loans ? both delinquencies and foreclosures ? edged up to 11.6% in July, a 50% year-on-year increase.



The deterioration ratio of loans worsening in status versus improving now sits at 2.2 to 1. Jumbo prime, option adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) and non-agency conforming prime loans experienced the highest deterioration rates. Jumbo prime foreclosure rates, for example, are up 634% from January 2008.



?[T]he percentage of 90-day or greater delinquent loans rolling to foreclosure status has decreased from 2007 and 2008 levels; however those loans not referred into foreclosure continue to roll to the next stage of delinquency, showing the volume of at-risk loans worsening,? LPS said. ?Meanwhile, the absolute volume and percentage of foreclosure starts relative to the total number of active loans continues to increase as well.?</strong>
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1251982785][quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1251981289][quote author="trrenter" date=1251973356]<blockquote>TRrenter, I didn't say it made sense.</blockquote>


Not only does it not make sense it is impossible.



Gross income is before they take out one deduction. DTI is based on gross income not net income.



You are wrong, plain and simple. No way can they make a loan at 100% DTI</blockquote>


I have heard this directly from GMAC and Chase. Call them if you don't believe it.</blockquote>


Assume for a minute you are correct. The cure rate will be 0%. Think about it.</blockquote>


I called them and they said they will actully do loans at 100%, 150%, 200% and 250% DTI. So I signed up for the 250% DTI loan and then I talked to the people at hope for homeowners and they are going to reduce it to a 38% DTI so I am buying today.



Then my damn alarm clock went off.
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1252013027][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1251982785][quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1251981289][quote author="trrenter" date=1251973356]<blockquote>TRrenter, I didn't say it made sense.</blockquote>


Not only does it not make sense it is impossible.



Gross income is before they take out one deduction. DTI is based on gross income not net income.



You are wrong, plain and simple. No way can they make a loan at 100% DTI</blockquote>


I have heard this directly from GMAC and Chase. Call them if you don't believe it.</blockquote>


Assume for a minute you are correct. The cure rate will be 0%. Think about it.</blockquote>


I called them and they said they will actully do loans at 100%, 150%, 200% and 250% DTI. So I signed up for the 250% DTI loan and then I talked to the people at hope for homeowners and they are going to reduce it to a 38% DTI so I am buying today.



Then my damn alarm clock went off.</blockquote>


You can joke all you want and you will still be wrong. Someone made the comment about "banks won't give you money...", well that is the first mistake. They gave the money out a long time ago. Now they are trying to get it back. They don't care about your other creditors or your health insurance or if you eat enough. They care about being first in line.
 
[quote author="graphrix" date=1251993988]This is like the old days. I love it! Someone tell nirvinerealtor to come back for old time sake.



<a href="http://www.housingwire.com/2009/09/02/lps-sees-foreclosure-inventory-rise-896-from-2008/">LPS Sees Foreclosure Inventory Rise 89.6% from 2008</a>



By DIANA GOLOBAY

September 2, 2009 8:10 AM CST



http://www.housingwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/rolls-to-foreclosure.png



Foreclosure starts increased in July while completed foreclosures eased, funneling more loans into the foreclosure pipeline. Loss mitigation efforts, however, seem to enjoy a greater degree of success.



<strong>Foreclosure inventory rose 4.2% in July from June and is up 89.6% from July 2008</strong>, according to the August mortgage monitor report by Lender Processing Services (LPS: 34.82 0.00%). The total US foreclosure inventory rate sits at 3%.



Foreclosure starts rose 7.1% to their second-highest record. The rate of loans rolling into the final foreclosure stage, however, are narrowing back toward levels seen in mid-2006 and remain below ?07 and ?08 levels as servicers step up loss mitigation efforts, LPS said.



These loss mitigation and foreclosure prevention efforts taken in Q109 and Q209 so far outperform the efforts taken in all of last year. Modifications made in the first two quarters of 2009 experienced lower redefault rates in their initial three months than those modifications made in every quarter of 2008.



In another bit of positive data, new delinquencies dropped in July to their second-lowest level in the last year.



<strong>The rate of total delinquencies remained unchanged from June at 8.6% but hold 40% above year-ago levels. The national rate for all non-current loans ? both delinquencies and foreclosures ? edged up to 11.6% in July, a 50% year-on-year increase.</strong>



<strong>The deterioration ratio of loans worsening in status versus improving now sits at 2.2 to 1. Jumbo prime, option adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) and non-agency conforming prime loans experienced the highest deterioration rates. Jumbo prime foreclosure rates, for example, are up 634% from January 2008.



?[T]he percentage of 90-day or greater delinquent loans rolling to foreclosure status has decreased from 2007 and 2008 levels; however those loans not referred into foreclosure continue to roll to the next stage of delinquency, showing the volume of at-risk loans worsening,? LPS said. ?Meanwhile, the absolute volume and percentage of foreclosure starts relative to the total number of active loans continues to increase as well.?</strong></blockquote>


I must be confused. This is a very positve report. I would even expect to see the rate of delinquency up 40% from last year because the data are cumulative. Aren't those squiggly lines all going down? The REO rate would also seem to not apply to OC. According to Loan Performance:



"In February, real estate-owned properties (REOs) totaled 0.8% of all outstanding mortgage loans in Orange County, up from 0.6% a year earlier but down from 0.9% in January."





Less than 1%, not 3%.





<a href="http://mortgage.freedomblogging.com/2009/04/01/banks-holding-more-oc-foreclosures/8583/">http://mortgage.freedomblogging.com/2009/04/01/banks-holding-more-oc-foreclosures/8583/</a>





Why is this bold? It wasn't bold when I typed it.

<em>

(^ Fixed bold type and hyperlink - SoCal)</em>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top