Foreclosure and distressed property topics

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
<p><em>In the first 9, yes that is nine 9, business days there gas been about 834 NODs. By the 12th business day of December, it will have exceeded last month. This is 93 per business day vs. November's 49 per business day.</em>


</p>

<p>graph, thanks for doing the research and the math, and the results are crazy! Wow! Will December be some kind of off-the-charts record bad month for foreclosures?</p>
 
<p>OC Register via Calculated Risk has new misery index.</p>

<p>Any of you young'uns remember the misery index of the 80s and early 90s? It was inflation plus unemployment.</p>

<p>This new one is mtg defaults plus unemployment, and at the top of the list is. . .tah, dah,</p>

<p>Mississippi.</p>

<p>California and Florida are neck and neck pretty far down the list.</p>
 
<p>Lennar is being foreclosed upon in a biggish project in the Chicago area. I wouldn't give them access to a deposit; would want an independant atty or title agent to hold it.</p>

<p>Re: Comments on Calculated Risk. Helocs are being limited by WaMu. That is, even if your line is larger, they will limit you to what you borrowed. Some worriers seem to think the loans can be called, but I don't think that was meant.</p>

<p>Altho there was some language quoted from the loan terms which give an awful lot of reasons and discretion to the banks in calling loans. What good would that do, people would just default right away?</p>

<p>So if any of you took out HELOCs with a real good reason, better drain them and stash the money somewhere else. (Mattress maybe?)</p>
 
<p>On Market Ticket Forums (don't know how I got there) there is a long discussion about HELOCS being callable.</p>

<p>Also that only reason WaMu would do this is if it was in danger of being seized by the Fed. Because it didn't have enough capital assets. And would do an asset search and make buyers of yachts and such sell same to cover call. Any thoughts on this anybody?</p>

<p>I never thought banks were smart enough to do stuff like this. Or, have enough employees to look and seize..</p>

<p>And why would the Fed do this, it would only start Armegeddon? I guess all that needs to happen is that WaMu would think it might happen. Don't see why the Fed would want to follow the rules at this late date. Maybe an overenthusiastic employee wrote them up in some way?</p>

<p>One person commented that the banks should have started this months ago, which I suppose is true.</p>

<p>This seems a bit far fetched and panic-y to me, but who knows?</p>

<p>Bloggers at Calculated Risk are very skeptical.</p>

<p> </p>
 
Why would they call? Beacause all of those HELOC's are secondary and tertiary debt on homes that are worth less than the total debt load against the house. If they do not act, they will have little practical recourse once the first lein forecloses.
 
<p>ll - Just a guess, but maybe many financial institutions are having a hard time meeting their reserve requirements and are looking for any means to do so? </p>
 
<p>What do you think about this?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.ushomeauction.com/property.php?auctionID=H-016&itemID=10811&venueId=68&start=0">http://www.ushomeauction.com/property.php?auctionID=H-016&itemID=10811&venueId=68&start=0</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.redfin.com/stingray/do/printable-listing?listing-id=1358538">http://www.redfin.com/stingray/do/printable-listing?listing-id=1358538</a></p>

<p>The home starts at $449,000. Last sale was $1,100,000 in December 2006. Looks like bank repurchased at $933,430 and it is vacant. October 2003 price is $820,000. It will probably sell for less...</p>
 
"I doubt it will sell at the auction." What do you mean? The bank would make an offer if it doesn't sell close enough to $933k?
 
<p>No Roo, that's a REDC auction. It's already a REO. Read REDC's fine print. There are reserves on the prices. There are shills in the audience. </p>

<p>See #3 on their Terms and Conditions page: http://www.ushomeauction.com/terms.php</p>
 
Just FYI, about half of those properties are left over from the last auction. In other words, they didn't sell last time, or the people who won the bid never qualified. Since this next one is going to be in Anacrime, I will be going. I want to see the shills in action. I wouldn't be surprised if it is Joey, the CEO of Impac, trying to bid up the properties they trying to get rid of.
 
Wow! Is all I can say. 1. Because I suck at updating this thread. 2. Because the foreclosure stats have ramped up, beyond even what this housing bear could imagine.





I looked at some of the original posts of mine in this thread, and to think only six months ago, there was a day, when there were 60 homes scheduled for the auction, and 20 would go back to the bank. Now, today there were 211 homes scheduled for the auction, and 68 went back to the bank. This was a huge day, and 4 properties actually were bought by people bidding. It was very interesting to see two properties in CDM go back to the bank, three in HB, and two in Newport. Some nice properties in South County went down, as well as some $1mil plus homes in the Orange and Tustin hills. Who said the high end and coastal areas are immune? Maybe... Irvine is, because the one that was scheduled today, was canceled. But, do not think that is a trend. There are 40 scheduled for Irvine this month, and it includes a McMansion in Quail Hill, that has an NTS for $300k less than the 2005 purchase price.





I don't have my final estimates on the foreclosure numbers for December, but I do have some good guesses and surprises.





Foreclosures/REOs for December, could be higher than all of 2006. Yes... that is one month, that could be greater than all of the foreclosures/REOs of 2006.





NODs for December, will break the monthly number record of 1620 in March of 1996. 2006 would be like 1991, so 2007 jumped right to the worst compared to the past.





NODs for the year, will be the second highest on record, and just shy of the 1996 record number of 13,888. This is an estimated 132% YOY increase.





The December resale sales (using the most recent mid-December sales) to NOD ratio is 0.84. Yes, that means there will be more NODs than resales, and depending on how the final total sales (including new homes) number pans out, it could be around 1. I dunno if that has ever happened, but I may have to look it up. Judging by the quarterly sales numbers, that has never happened. In November the resale to NOD ratio was 1.36, and October was 0.93.





The estimated Q4 resales to NOD ratio will be under 1. Again, it means more NODs than resales, and it will break the record of Q1 1996 of a ratio 1.17, when resale homes still exceeded NODs.





Keep in mind, that in 1996 there was job growth, which currently we do not have. It was 95 and 96, that the adjustable rate resets started to hit from 92. 93 and 94, and they have only begun this time around.





Anyone who will spin these numbers, is really in a kool-aid coma. <a href="http://ocecon101.blogspot.com/2007/01/foreclosure-comparison.html">These numbers are awful, and I never, ever thought it would get this bad, this fast</a>. Like Roubini, it looks like I was too optimistic in the past.





<em>"According to the Register's article there were 647 homes that went through foreclosure and that is quadruple from last year. That is scary, as foreclosures only tripled from 88-91. The only thing is according to the articles below there was 1396 total in 1991 and through half the year in 92 there was 1264. If we are some where near 647 by July then we know what is to come. The article today also says we are approaching levels not seen since 92. More like 90 but if it keeps going like this we should be there soon."</em>





Oops... I was wrong, and way too optimistic, so it looks like foreclosures will be only 548% higher than last year. OC was above 647, sometime in April.





So... all the bulls who have labeled me a chicken little, pollyanna, and overly-pessimistic bear... can go kick rocks, and the larger the better.
 
I have the final guesstimates of the December foreclosure numbers. All of the percentages used are by the per day numbers.





NODs 1735, or 87.8 per day, up 77% from last month.





NTSs 1161, or 58 per day, up 22.9% from last month.





Trustee sales 664, or 33.2 per day, up 62% from last month.





There was a bull on Lansner's blog citing the foreclosure pace slowing down. Oops! Too soon to call a trend, and November was just noise. With the NTSs continuing to increase, there is no logical reason to believe foreclosures are going to slow down. With the increase in NODs, it doesn't look like the increase in NTSs are going to slow. We will see how January does for NODs, but December was the first real month to see the effects of the August credit crunch, and I doubt it will be any better. Remember, I have been too optimistic in the past, so it could be even worse. And, to be honest... I don't know if I would want to see that. It would be nice to be wrong, for being to pessimistic. However, I think the sooner we can purge the system, the better it will be. And, if this isn't a purge, I can't imagine what is to come.





There has only been one month, where I was way off on the trustee sales/REOs, but that is just noise. So... I think the REO number will be plus or minus 15, of the total in 2006 of 647.





awgee - Friday is the day for his home. Sorry, how could I forget how important he is?
 
<p><em>Friday is the day for his home. Sorry, how could I forget how important he is?</em></p>

<p>Argh, I feel bad. I know he had a sick kid and stuff and there's a enough woe for one family, but I just can't shake the feeling of wanting to sing the chorus to "Disco Inferno".</p>
 
<a href="http://mortgage.freedomblogging.com/2008/01/15/oc-foreclosures-approach-record-high/">OC foreclosures approach record high</a>





Graph - what's your take on this?
 
1895 NODs and 644 foreclosures. Nasty, just plain nasty. I do not know why it took me so long, but I think the reason why my trustee sale numbers are higher than DQ's, are because they do not count the sales at the auction, only the homes that go back to the bank. Still... my error of margin is less than 10%, which is less than the guberment's margin for new home sales.





A record high for monthly NOD number. The second highest quarterly NOD number. The second highest annual NOD number. The third highest quarterly foreclosure number for a Q4. A record NOD to sales ratio for the month and the quarter. A record foreclosure to sales ratio for the month and quarter.





My take is, I need to get off my butt, and get use to Excel 2007, so I can add some great chartporn for a blog post on this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top