REOs Leased by Bank Considered Shadow Inventory?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
[quote author="bltserv" date=1252849092]I think the boys went to sleep finally



<img src="http://www.bltserv.com/images/SkippyRolar.bmp" alt="" /></blockquote>


Says the tool posting at 11:45 pm on a saturday night...



* Don't yell at me for name calling! His avatar is a hammer, a hammer is a tool.
 
[quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1252884494][quote author="trrenter" date=1252877738][quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1252877389][quote author="trrenter" date=1252876980]The common definition of Shadow Inventory I have seen is "Shadow inventory is housing units that are not making it onto the public market for one reason or another."



So would I count those homes being leased as Shadow inventory I would say yes. Banks are not in the property management business.</blockquote>


You are correct and these homes are counted in shadow inventory. <strong>But the conversation about shadow inventory is meant to guage the threat of an onslaught of inventory. </strong> Homes that are rented long term do not constitute a threat.</blockquote>


No the question from RoLar was:



<blockquote>If a bank is leasing out a property that they own, is that considered shadow inventory as well?</blockquote>


Then there was a lot of bickering and name calling and the question was never answered.



I never saw in Rolars question if this would lessen the impact of the onslaught of inventory.



So I can answer that as well. I don't think a few banks leasing out properties instea of selling them will lessen the impact.



I will change my mind though if Wells Fargo and B of A start a leasing program.



I doubt they will.</blockquote>


<strong>You are right, the minimal shadow inventory will not be affected by some of those becoming rentals</strong>.</blockquote>


I am confused. Your first bolded statement suggests that there is an onslaught of shadow inventory.



Then when I say I doubt that the leasing of properties will lessen the impact of that onslaught you then make the next bolded statement that suggests you disagree with your first statement.



What do you want to address? Are you back on the fact that shadow inventory is not an issue?



Stay on topic.
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1252887677][quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1252884494][quote author="trrenter" date=1252877738][quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1252877389][quote author="trrenter" date=1252876980]The common definition of Shadow Inventory I have seen is "Shadow inventory is housing units that are not making it onto the public market for one reason or another."



So would I count those homes being leased as Shadow inventory I would say yes. Banks are not in the property management business.</blockquote>


You are correct and these homes are counted in shadow inventory. <strong>But the conversation about shadow inventory is meant to guage the threat of an onslaught of inventory. </strong> Homes that are rented long term do not constitute a threat.</blockquote>


No the question from RoLar was:



<blockquote>If a bank is leasing out a property that they own, is that considered shadow inventory as well?</blockquote>


Then there was a lot of bickering and name calling and the question was never answered.



I never saw in Rolars question if this would lessen the impact of the onslaught of inventory.



So I can answer that as well. I don't think a few banks leasing out properties instea of selling them will lessen the impact.



I will change my mind though if Wells Fargo and B of A start a leasing program.



I doubt they will.</blockquote>


<strong>You are right, the minimal shadow inventory will not be affected by some of those becoming rentals</strong>.</blockquote>


I am confused. Your first bolded statement suggests that there is an onslaught of shadow inventory.



Then when I say I doubt that the leasing of properties will lessen the impact of that onslaught you then make the next bolded statement that suggests you disagree with your first statement.



What do you want to address? Are you back on the fact that shadow inventory is not an issue?



Stay on topic.</blockquote>


"Your first bolded statement suggests that there is an onslaught of shadow inventory."



No it doesn't.





There was nothing there to be confused about. The comment about the reason for a discussion of a threat does not consititute a threat in and of itself.
 
Links Regarding Shadow inventory:



<a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/08/MNL516UG90.DTL&type=business&tsp=1">Banks aren't reselling many foreclosed homes</a>



<strong>Lenders nationwide are sitting on hundreds of thousands of foreclosed homes that they have not resold or listed for sale, according to numerous data sources.</strong>



<a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106113137">'Shadow' Inventory May Slow Housing Recovery</a>



<strong>In a recent survey, Zillow found that nearly a third of homeowners would have considered putting their homes up for sale if the market were better. Nationally, that would mean between 11 million and 30 million homes that aren't listed but are waiting on the sidelines. </strong>



<a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/builders-brace-for-more-foreclosures-arm-resets">Foreclosures, ARM resets to weigh on builders</a>



We've had recent moratoriums on foreclosures that have ended and I think <strong>there's still some backlog of foreclosures that will come through as well</strong> as the impact of some of the ARM resets that will still be occurring this year and next,"



None of these links are from Bubble Blogs. It seems as though some pretty reliable sources with no skin in the game.
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1252888677]Links Regarding Shadow inventory:



<a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/08/MNL516UG90.DTL&type=business&tsp=1">Banks aren't reselling many foreclosed homes</a>



<strong>Lenders nationwide are sitting on hundreds of thousands of foreclosed homes that they have not resold or listed for sale, according to numerous data sources.</strong>



<a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106113137">'Shadow' Inventory May Slow Housing Recovery</a>



<strong>In a recent survey, Zillow found that nearly a third of homeowners would have considered putting their homes up for sale if the market were better. Nationally, that would mean between 11 million and 30 million homes that aren't listed but are waiting on the sidelines. </strong>



<a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/builders-brace-for-more-foreclosures-arm-resets">Foreclosures, ARM resets to weigh on builders</a>



We've had recent moratoriums on foreclosures that have ended and I think <strong>there's still some backlog of foreclosures that will come through as well</strong> as the impact of some of the ARM resets that will still be occurring this year and next,"



None of these links are from Bubble Blogs. It seems as though some pretty reliable sources with no skin in the game.</blockquote>


Wild-ass guesses (based upon national numbers) by Realty Trac and Zillow aren't as good as the concrete facts already known about Orange County.



"It seems as though some pretty reliable sources with no skin in the game."



Are you kidding me?
 
From the NPR link:



"In a recent survey, Zillow found that nearly a third of homeowners would have considered putting their homes up for sale if the market were better. Nationally, that would mean between 11 million and 30 million homes that aren't listed but are waiting on the sidelines."



They surveyed Zillow customers (got slanted sample?) and 2/3 said they are not interested in selling even if the market improved. It's stuff like this that pollutes legitimate debate.
 
"By not flooding the market, they were getting better pricing on the homes that they owned," Lashinsky says. "And instead of people coming in and offering less than what the prices were, they were ending up in multiple-offer situations and getting more for the homes."



Even if this were true, why anyone would think for 2 seconds that it will change is beyond me.
 
<img src="http://www.bltserv.com/images/auction-notices-chart-blog-size.jpg" alt="" />



And along with it "Shadow Inventory". The banks dont have the people to plow through the paperwork.

I must have a half dozen people I am aware of, that have not made a payment in 8-10 months.



Just dont see how they could take the time to lease any of these homes when they cant even forclose

on them in a timely fashion.
 
[quote author="bltserv" date=1252889857]<img src="http://www.bltserv.com/images/auction-notices-chart-blog-size.jpg" alt="" />



And along with it "Shadow Inventory". The banks dont have the people to plow through the paperwork.

I must have a half dozen people I am aware of, that have not made a payment in 8-10 months.



Just dont see how they could take the time to lease any of these homes when they cant even forclose

on them in a timely fashion.</blockquote>


That's a pipeline. Whatever comes out of it will come out over a long period of time.
 
[quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1252889060]From the NPR link:



"In a recent survey, Zillow found that nearly a third of homeowners would have considered putting their homes up for sale if the market were better. Nationally, that would mean between 11 million and 30 million homes that aren't listed but are waiting on the sidelines."



They surveyed Zillow customers (got slanted sample?) and 2/3 said they are not interested in selling even if the market improved. It's stuff like this that pollutes legitimate debate.</blockquote>


Can you explain your logic why this is a slanted sample?



A Zillow customer is a person going to a website that is dedicated to buying and selling property. So they surveyed people that come to a website that is dedicated to buying and selling real estate and 1/3 said they wouldn't sell right now.



If anything one could make a cogent argument that the 1/3 number is too low.
 
[quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1252876183][quote author="graphrix" date=1252840290][quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1252830932]"Now one home is merely an example but there have been a group of people that actually deny the existence of shadow inventory all together, an argument that makes you feel as if you are talking to someone who still believes the world is flat."



<strong>That's a moronic statement</strong>. No one, and I mean no one, denies the existance of shadow inventory. To do so would mean properties foreclosed last week or last month are not headed to the market. That statement is so stupid it's not funny. The question - the only question - is the number.



How could anyone come up with such a statement, and better yet, <strong>how could anyone regurgitate it?</strong></blockquote>


STOP WITH THE NAME CALLING AND DEROGATORY COMMENTS. THIS IS THE LAST WARNING YOU GET! UNDERSTOOD?</blockquote>




Are you kidding me? What name calling? I said Dr Housing Bubble's statement was moronic, not even that he is. He is allowed to call people flat-eathers but no one can call him out on it? Are we now protecting all third parties around the world? Are you ready to uphold that standard yourself? Right now, you're not upholding any standards whatsoever, as evidenced by the constant harassment of BLTServ and others. Your own moderator, SoCal78, has said you have a double-standard. It looks like you are trying to create a situation where you drive certain people away. You really, really don't like challenge of any kind here - that is not a sign of strength in your arguments.</blockquote>


I made your points that were name calling in bold when you put it all together. You have been warned by me several times now, and you have been warned by IrvineRenter several times now. If you do now stop, my next course of action will be to fix your posts that break the forum rules, and anything after that you can take a nice little vacation from IHB. If you don't like the way I am as a moderator, go take it up with zovall. I have been way too patient with you. Either clean it up of face the consequences, your choice.



And stop whining about not having any kind of challenge here, we love it, we would be bored without it, but we have rules here and you and even myself need to follow them. If you don't like that, I will say it again, you can have a nice unplanned vacation.
 
[quote author="RoLar_USC" date=1252886483][quote author="bltserv" date=1252849092]I think the boys went to sleep finally



<img src="http://www.bltserv.com/images/SkippyRolar.bmp" alt="" /></blockquote>


Says the tool posting at 11:45 pm on a saturday night...



* Don't yell at me for name calling! His avatar is a hammer, a hammer is a tool.</blockquote>


You are pushing it. Do it again, and it will be name calling. Really, you don't want to push me. You won't like it.
 
[quote author="bltserv" date=1252889857]<img src="http://www.bltserv.com/images/auction-notices-chart-blog-size.jpg" alt="" />



And along with it "Shadow Inventory". The banks dont have the people to plow through the paperwork.

I must have a half dozen people I am aware of, that have not made a payment in 8-10 months.



Just dont see how they could take the time to lease any of these homes when they cant even forclose

on them in a timely fashion.</blockquote>
All thanks to 80-90% of the scheduled auctions getting postponed or canceled at the steps of the courthouse.
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1252877738]I will change my mind though if Wells Fargo and B of A start a leasing program.



I doubt they will.</blockquote>


From a couple days ago:



<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>



<blockquote>Trickle, trickle. The REO's are starting to come.</blockquote> - Jim the Realtor.



The home he's looking at comes from BoA. Tune in next week for:



"We should reopen the "Four Weeks and all Hell breaks loose" thread" or



"There is no phantom inventory."



<a href="http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm">The Flat Earth Society is real, people. And, from Alaska!</a>
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1252890242][quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1252889060]From the NPR link:



"In a recent survey, Zillow found that nearly a third of homeowners would have considered putting their homes up for sale if the market were better. Nationally, that would mean between 11 million and 30 million homes that aren't listed but are waiting on the sidelines."



They surveyed Zillow customers (got slanted sample?) and 2/3 said they are not interested in selling even if the market improved. It's stuff like this that pollutes legitimate debate.</blockquote>


Can you explain your logic why this is a slanted sample?



A Zillow customer is a person going to a website that is dedicated to buying and selling property. So they surveyed people that come to a website that is dedicated to buying and selling real estate and 1/3 said they wouldn't sell right now.



If anything one could make a cogent argument that the 1/3 number is too low.</blockquote>


It is slanted because there are 100 million households in the US (I don't know how may live in owner-occupied properties - let's call it 65 million). If they say there are up to 30 million of them as sales-in-waiting, then they are using the entire US population as the sample when in fact, the sample only includes people predisposed to be on a real estate sales site to begin with. The 30 million number is close to half of all US owner occupied homes. It's fairly obvious to me that this is hyperbole.
 
[quote author="graphrix" date=1252891566][quote author="RoLar_USC" date=1252886483][quote author="bltserv" date=1252849092]I think the boys went to sleep finally



<img src="http://www.bltserv.com/images/SkippyRolar.bmp" alt="" /></blockquote>


Says the tool posting at 11:45 pm on a saturday night...



* Don't yell at me for name calling! His avatar is a hammer, a hammer is a tool.</blockquote>


You are pushing it. Do it again, and it will be name calling. Really, you don't want to push me. You won't like it.</blockquote>


Does posting nasty photos not constitute abuse? It's the double-standard that is driving conflict. Would you allow me to post this photo in reference to yourself?
 
[quote author="USCTrojanCPA" date=1252892288][quote author="bltserv" date=1252889857]<img src="http://www.bltserv.com/images/auction-notices-chart-blog-size.jpg" alt="" />



And along with it "Shadow Inventory". The banks dont have the people to plow through the paperwork.

I must have a half dozen people I am aware of, that have not made a payment in 8-10 months.



Just dont see how they could take the time to lease any of these homes when they cant even forclose

on them in a timely fashion.</blockquote>
All thanks to 80-90% of the scheduled auctions getting postponed or canceled at the steps of the courthouse.</blockquote>
Admittedly, I only track the homes in Coto, but of the scheduled auctions in Coto every week, many, many, many are postponed, and only a few are canceled. Of those that are canceled, almost all are canceled due to a completed short sale which has the same effect on prices as REO sales.
 
[quote author="awgee" date=1252904505]

Admittedly, I only track the homes in Coto, but of the scheduled auctions in Coto every week, many, many, many are postponed, and only a few are canceled. Of those that are canceled, almost all are canceled due to a completed short sale which has the same effect on prices as REO sales.</blockquote>


Awgee, have you studied that? from my anecdotal observations, I'd say short sales are far less impacting than a REO and IMHO, they often seem to have near premium pricing when they get agreed to by the bank.
 
[quote author="No_Such_Reality" date=1252905413][quote author="awgee" date=1252904505]

Admittedly, I only track the homes in Coto, but of the scheduled auctions in Coto every week, many, many, many are postponed, and only a few are canceled. Of those that are canceled, almost all are canceled due to a completed short sale which has the same effect on prices as REO sales.</blockquote>


Awgee, have you studied that? from my anecdotal observations, I'd say short sales are far less impacting than a REO and IMHO, they often seem to have near premium pricing when they get agreed to by the bank.</blockquote>
Sorry, short sales in Coto are at prices much less than organic sales, and equitable with REO sales. The price which is much less than all the others is the sale to third party at foreclosure auction.

Short sale prices in the less expensive portions of Irvine may be comparable to the other sales in Irvine, which are antithetical to prices everywhere else.
 
[quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1252894081][quote author="trrenter" date=1252890242][quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1252889060]From the NPR link:



"In a recent survey, Zillow found that nearly a third of homeowners would have considered putting their homes up for sale if the market were better. Nationally, that would mean between 11 million and 30 million homes that aren't listed but are waiting on the sidelines."



They surveyed Zillow customers (got slanted sample?) and 2/3 said they are not interested in selling even if the market improved. It's stuff like this that pollutes legitimate debate.</blockquote>


Can you explain your logic why this is a slanted sample?



A Zillow customer is a person going to a website that is dedicated to buying and selling property. So they surveyed people that come to a website that is dedicated to buying and selling real estate and 1/3 said they wouldn't sell right now.



If anything one could make a cogent argument that the 1/3 number is too low.</blockquote>


It is slanted because there are 100 million households in the US (I don't know how may live in owner-occupied properties - let's call it 65 million). If they say there are up to 30 million of them as sales-in-waiting, then they are using the entire US population as the sample when in fact, the sample only includes people predisposed to be on a real estate sales site to begin with. The 30 million number is close to half of all US owner occupied homes. It's fairly obvious to me that this is hyperbole.</blockquote>


Ok as long as you say so. You are the expert. With 2 minutes and a search engine you could find out how many homes are owner occupied.



The range that Zillow gave was between 11-30 million. I would agree that 30 million may be a stretch at the higher limit I think 11 million is completly feasable.



But again you are the expert on this so I guess with your steller research you have me won over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top